|
|
Debate: Gays in the US military
From Debatepedia
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Should gays be allowed to serve openly in the US military? Is "don't ask don't tell" bad policy?
|
Background and context
There is significant debate in the United States as to whether gays should be allowed to serve openly in the US military. The current policy of "Don't Ask Don't tell", signed into law in 1993 under the Clinton administration, does not allow it. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" authorizes the discharge of an American soldier for coming out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Unless one of the exceptions to the law 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." The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a servicemember's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though mere suspicion of homosexual behavior can cause an investigation.
While President Bush was supportive of "Don't Ask Don't Tell", President Barack Obama promised to lift the policy and allow gays to serve openly in the United States military. This has reinvigorated the debate, which has drawn international attention, as other militaries and governments around the world grapple with similar questions.
|
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Military readiness: Does "don't ask don't tell" generally harm or help military readiness?
|
[  ] Pro
- Allowing gays to serve openly does not undermine military readiness. Former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen spoke against the policy publicly in early January 2007: "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces."[1]
|
[ ] Con
- Gays in the military would harm military leadership. Gays in the military would adversely affect the chain of command in the military, as certain relationships would become less trustworthy and tensions would undermine the authority of leaders and the willingness of troops to follow.
- Military should not end "don't ask don't tell" during war "EDITORIAL: Please don't ask again." Washington Times. October 13, 2009: "The most recent Military Times survey showed that 58 percent of military respondents oppose a policy change, and 24 percent said they would either leave the military (10 percent) or consider terminating their careers after serving their tours of duty (14 percent). [...] the White House isn't close to having military support for ending 'don't ask, don't tell.' The Obama team could be justifiably concerned that pushing change would be seen as a dangerous distraction at a time when the president is having difficulty formulating a strategy for the war in Afghanistan."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Troop morale: Does "don't ask don't tell" harm or help troop morale, unit cohesion?
|
[ ] Pro
- It would strenghten relations Although I don't have much of an opinion on this, I do have something to say. Doesn't it occur to you that gay relations, especially inside a hardened place could instead be beneficial? Since it strengthen relations with fellow soldiers, and also can settle disputes inside the military. There's also no confirmed or reasonable evidence that gays in the US miliatary seriously decrease the morale of the military. It's purely prejuidice, just like the discrimination and blaming the Negro soldiers in WWII. Also, gays are proven to be just as effective human as anybody, just like Negroes.
- Gay soldiers do not undermine unit morale and cohesion A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 72% of respondents who had experience with gays or lesbians in their unit said that the presence of gay or lesbian unit members had either no impact or a positive impact on their personal morale, while 67% said as much for overall unit morale. 73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel.[3]
- Professional troops can work with gays and focus on mission The argument that the presence of gay troops will undermine morale and unit cohesion is premised on the idea that US troops are unable to handle their emotions and maintain their professional focus in the presence of gay peers. This is an insult to the professionalism of US soldiers. As the Rand Corporation concluded in a 2000 brief on the topic: "it is not necessary to like someone to work with him or her, so long as members share a commitment to the group’s objectives."[4]
- Armies globally show viability of gays serving openly Om Prakash. "The Efficacy of Don't Ask Don't Tell." Winning essay of the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition: "There are potential lessons to learn from other countries that have lifted the ban on homosexuals serving openly. There was no mass exodus of heterosexuals, and there was also no mass “coming-out” of homosexuals. Prior to lifting their bans, in Canada 62 percent of servicemen stated that they would refuse to share showers with a gay soldier, and in the United Kingdom, two-thirds of males stated that they would not willingly serve in the military if gays were allowed. In both cases, after lifting their bans, the result was 'no-effect.'44 In a survey of over 100 experts from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found that all agreed the decision to lift the ban on homosexuals had no impact on military performance, readiness, cohesion, or ability to recruit or retain, nor did it increase the HIV rate among troops."
|
[ ] Con
- Gays in the military undermine unit cohesion and morale The "Don't ask, don't tell" law (Federal law Pub.L. 103-160 [10 U.S.C. § 654].) prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts' from serving in the armed forces of the United States, for the following central reason: "One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members. . . . The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts 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."[5]
- Minority of troop discomfort with gays is enough to damage cohesion. The 2006 Zogby poll that cites a majority of US troops expressing comfort with gay troops, also shows a sizable minority of nearly 28% expressing that the presence of gay troops damaged their morale. Such an opposition, albeit in the minority, certainly suggests that the open presence of gays in the military will, overall, undermine troop morale and cohesion, by alienating this minority and creating a rift between it and the majority.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Service compatibility? Is homosexuality compatible with military service?
|
[ ] Pro
- Gays that keep personal lives private are compatible with military A white female US military officer said, according to "Gays and lesbians in the military": "I feel as long as they can perform the jobs required of them, they should be allowed in the military. What goes on behind closed doors is none of the military's business. As long as gays and lesbians keep their private lives out of the workplace, I foresee no problems."[7]
- Gay troops have served with distinction, deserve to serve openly. General Colin Powell, at a Senate hearing in 1993: "[H]omosexuals have privately served well in the past and are continuing to serve well today."[8]
|
[ ] Con
- Homosexuality is incompatible with military culture and service Homosexuality is simply incompatible with the principles of military services, which include a focus on the mission, service, discipline, bodily integrity, and control over one's impulses. Homosexuality does not appropriately reflect these principles. This sentiment was reflected in an article signed by Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., a former commandant of the Marine Corps; Adm. Leighton W. Smith, a former commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe; Gen. Charles A. Horner, who commanded U.S. aerial forces during the 1990-91 Gulf War; and Adm. Jerome L. Johnson, a former vice chief of Naval Operations. They wrote, succinctly, "homosexuality is incompatible with military service".[9]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Retention: Does "Don't ask don't tell" harm or improve retention?"
|
[ ] Pro
- Troops should be judged on performance, not orientation Soldiers should be judged on their performance not on their sexual orientation. "Don't ask, don't tell" completely ignores performance, judging and even discarding soldiers based on their entirely irrelevant sexual orientation. A good military should be a meritocracy, rewarding good achievement and ability. "Don't ask don't tell" fails to live up to this notion, and surely suffers in its quality as a result.
- Number of gays in the military makes ban unwise. In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy, citing evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces, and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans.[10] Ridding the military of homosexuals would, therefore, seriously reduce the number of armed forces available to the US military and impair the United State's ability to project its foreign policy and national security interests.
- Don't ask don't tell harms retention, strains deployed troops. Bob Barr. "Don't Ask, Who Cares." The Wall Street Journal. June 13, 2007: "The U.S. has fired over 11,000 people under the current policy, and in the process has lost over 1,000 service members with 'mission-critical skills,' including 58 Arabic linguists. Researchers at the UCLA School of Law have found that lifting the ban could increase the number of active-duty personnel by over 40,000. Because the military can't fill its slots [, it has lowered its standards, extended tours of duty and increased rotations, further hurting morale and readiness."
|
[ ] Con
- Gays in the military undermine recruiting/retention of opponents Letter from the American Center for Military Readiness. March 3, 2009 - "When the 2008 [Military Times] survey asked how people would respond if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly, 10% said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and an additional 14% said they would consider ending their careers. These responses from active duty members are not exact indicators, but they are significant, especially when major efforts are underway to increase the Army and Marine Corps. We cannot afford to lose almost a quarter of the volunteer force, especially among careerists in grades and skills that are not quickly or easily replaceable."
- Gays are only discharged for willfully breaking policy. Anne Hull. "How 'Don't Tell' Translates". Washington Post. June 18, 2004 - "The Army says the discharged linguists were casualties of their own failure to meet a known policy. 'We have standards,' said Harvey Perritt, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va. 'We have physical standards, academic standards. There's no difference between administering these standards and administering 'don't ask, don't tell.' The rules are the rules.'"
- "Don't ask don't tell" does not actively pursue gays. Letter from the American Center for Military Readiness. March 3, 2009 - "Don't ask don't tell was formulated in response to President Clinton's direction to the secretary of defense to find a way to enable homosexuals who wish to serve to do so. The policy removed the question: 'are you homosexual?' from the uniformed services enlistment application form ('don't ask'); asserted that open admission of homosexuality or homosexual conduct were a basis for discharge ('don't tell'); and charged military leaders not to pursue suspected homosexuals without clear evidence of conduct or open admissions."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Recruits: Does "don't ask don't tell" impair or improve recruiting?
|
[ ] Yes
- "Don't ask don't tell" costs the military gay recruits. Bruce Maiman. "Obama needs to dump 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' now." Examiner. October 12, 2009: "Researchers at the UCLA School of Law have found that the ban has discouraged nearly 45,000 Americans from joining and remaining in the armed forces. That's an increase in active-duty personnel by more than the number of troops General Stanley McChrystal says we need in Afghanistan. Where are those supporters of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" who want the president to follow General McChrystal's advice?"
|
[ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Rights: Is "don't ask don't tell" inconsistent with citizens' rights?
|
[ ] Pro
- What about African-Americans? This is the same case as with African-Americans during the WWII. They weren't allowed to fight in the war (only until several laws were passed). The African-American situation was similar to our situation. Just because of some fictious, bigoted beliefs, the African-Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat, making both the nation outraged and the African-Americans frustrated. The same applies to gays. It's also just because of some fictious, bigoted beliefs that gays can't fight as well.
- "Don't ask don't tell" makes gays second class citizens. Anna Quindlen. "The End Of An Error". Newsweek. April 4, 2009 - "When it became law in 1993, the policy was sold as an attempt to allow gays to serve if they did not discuss their orientation or participate in homosexual acts—that is, if they lived a life of pretense and self-denial not required of straight counterparts. Shame and second-class status were therefore built into the deal, and unsurprisingly led to a reality in which exemplary soldiers were harassed, investigated and expelled based on "evidence" as negligible as friendly banter or thoughtless gossip."
- Forcing secrecy on gay troops deprives them of their identity. Tech. Sgt. Leonard Matlovich: "I'm intensely proud to be gay and you should be, too. Unless we state our case, we'll continue to be robbed of our role models, our heritage, our history, and our future."[11]
- "Don't ask don't tell" punishes citizens that come-out of the closet. "Editorial: Don't ask, don't tell, just act." Emerald Editorial Board. October 15, 2009: "On National Coming Out Day this past Monday, more than 80 students signed their names to a list that appeared on the back page of the Emerald. The list declared the students, along with professors, co-workers, alumni and friends, among the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer members of our community. It was an act of courage, even in the mostly welcoming city of Eugene, considering signing one’s name under the LGBTQ section of the list is enough to be disqualified from serving in the nation’s military."
|
[ ] Con
- Gays do not have a "right" to military service Robert Maginnis. "Gays in the Military Debate". Human Events. October 4, 2007 - "The 1993 ban is premised on the fact that there is no constitutional right to serve. Thus, Congress may decide who should or should not serve. For 231 years, the US military has discriminated among potential recruits based on a variety of characteristics and behaviors, with the intent of forming the best possible force. That’s why, according to the General Accountability Office, the Pentagon discharged 59,098 service personnel for drug offenses, 26,513 for weight standards and 9,501 for homosexuality between 1993 and 2004."
- "Don't ask don't tell has been upheld numerous times in court. "Don't ask, don't tell" has been upheld five times in federal court, and in a Supreme Court case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. (2006).[12]
- "Don't ask don't tell" forbids homosexual acts, not homosexuality. "The Pentagon's New Policy Guidelines on Homosexuals in the Military". The New York Times. July 20, 1993: "Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender."[13] In other words, the policy does not prohibit being gay in the military, but only expressions of that homosexuality.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Privacy: Can privacy and modesty rights be maintained with gays serving openly?
|
[ ] Pro
- Gays are held to same standards of decency in military as others. A white male officers said, as quoted in the book "Gays and Lesbians in the Military": "Gays should be held to exactly the same standards of propriety and public behavior as every one else - public or indiscreet sexual behavior ought to be discouraged, whether participants are gay or straight."[14]
- Most gays will remain private after military ban is lifted A white female officer was reported saying in the book "Gays and Lesbians in the Military": "Most gays and lesbians just want to be left alone to do their jobs. My opinion is that most gays will remain in the closet long after the ban is lifted - they just don't want to continue living under threat."[15]
|
[ ] Con
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Choice: Is homosexuality a choice? Is this relevant to military policy?
|
[ ] Pro
- Homosexuality is no choice, should not be banned in militaries. Many gay members of the military make the following argument as to why it is illogical that homosexuals would choose: "I wish I could decide who I fell in love with; if someone thinks I would consciously choose such a life where I am forced to live in hiding and fear, knowing the bulk of the population is against you, is just crazy. I can’t help who I am.' 'Why would I choose to suffer like this?' Ultimately"[16]
|
[ ] Con
- Gays make an immoral choice the military need not tolerate Many argue that homosexuality is a choice, rather than an inherent trait that warrants protection and toleration. It would follow from this that the military is not obligated to accept or tolerate gays, or gays serving openly. One white female US military officer was quoted in the book "Gays and lesbians in the military" as saying: "It is a moral choice - people aren't born homosexual, they choose (though some can have some tendencies - they can be cured). It is a sin."[17]
The statement that people choose to be gay should not be misinterpreted. It's possible that for some it could be like choosing to forsake an addiction. You don't just snap your fingers and change your mind. It's like saying people choose to smoke, choose to view pornography, choose to procrastinate, and choose to drink coffee. Then one should further speculate as to whether a "gay" person brought the tendency on himself or not.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Morality: Is homosexuality moral? Should this drive policy?
|
[ ] Pro
- Gays are natural not immoral, should be accepted in armies "Gays in the US military." Religious tolerance: "In the past, gays and lesbians were not permitted in any of the armed forces in the West. Most countries have abandoned their anti-gay policies in recent years, as mental health professionals determined that a homosexual orientation is fixed, and unchosen, a normal and natural orientation for a minority of adults, and not a mental illness. Among the armies in the Western industrialized world, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK allow gays and lesbians to serve freely."
- Individual prejudice should not drive military policy C. Dixon Osburn, who heads the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group in Washington, said in March 2007, "General Pace1s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces. [...] As a Marine and a military leader, General Pace knows that prejudice should not dictate policy. It is inappropriate for the Chairman to condemn those who serve our country because of his own personal bias. He should immediately apologize for his remarks."[18]
- If "immoral" gays are banned from army, ban adulterers too. A white female military officer was quoted in the book "Gays and Lesbians in the Military," as saying: "About moral choices, let's not let people who have had premarital sex or an affair be in the army either!!! Then there would be no one protecting our country. And bible bashers need to reread the section that says he without guilt should cast the first stone."[19]
- Gays in the military is inevitable; lift ban sooner than later. Barry M. Goldwater. "Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable" - "The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable."
|
[ ] Con
- US military should not condone immoral homosexuality Marine General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a March 2007 interview with the Chicago Tribune, "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts."[20]
- "Don't ask don't tell" preserves successful values of US military. Cal Thomas. "Don't ask don't tell, and don't legitimize." Salt Lake City Tribune. October 15, 2009: "The gays in the military and gay marriage issues are part of a broader attempt by liberals to restructure society. Social activists despise biblical morality (which heterosexuals could use a little more of, too), traditional values that have been proven to work when tried, and numerous other cultural mores. This is not an opinion. It is also not a secret."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Quality of life: Does "don't ask don't tell" improve or harm gay troop quality of life?
|
[ ] Pro
- "Don't ask don't tell insults and traumatizes gay troops C. Dixon Osburn, who heads the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group in Washington, said in March of 2007, "General Pace's comments [against the moral soundness of homosexuality] are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces. Our men and women in uniform make tremendous sacrifices for our country, and deserve General Pace's praise, not his condemnation."
- Jeff Cleghorn, a former lawyer with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay-rights group monitoring military justice, said to the Washington Post in June 18, 2004 article, "In the case of some, they get in the Army and they are traumatized by an awareness that the military is 20 years behind the societal curve."[22]
- "Don't ask don't tell" damages gay troop relationships Megan Coffey. "Gay troops suffer under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Examiner. October 13, 2009: "As hard as deployment is on the heterosexual relationships of troops deployed on the battlefield, it is exponentially harder on the same-sex relationships of deployed troops, because gay personnel must pretend their partners don't exist. [...] If an LGBT troop is injured or killed, his or her partner may never even find out. Same-sex partners cannot see their loved ones off or welcome them home from deployments in public; they cannot send them openly affectionate letters or emails, or talk to them by phone, or send them care packages or photos, or even say or write 'I love you' to each other--all under the stress of separation and the daily fear of imminent death."
|
[ ] Con
- "Don't ask don't tell" softened military policy on gays "Don't ask don't tell" made US military policy more flexible and accommodating to gays in the military. The key element was that shifted policy from officers overtly seeking, persecuting, court marshaling, and discharging (often dishonorably), toward a policy that restricted the ability of officers and commanders to inquire on the orientation of a soldier and pursue subsequent action. It also set a higher burden of proof in demonstrating that a person was a homosexual. This general shift toward accommodation was an improvement and should be recognized as such.
- There are good reasons for servicemen to keep sexual orientation secret. As long as they keep their sexual preferences secret, there are no problems. If they expose them, however, problems arise with other soldiers. They often share very close quarters and may make other soldiers uncomfortable.
- Commanders/officers also cannot ask about orientation. "Don't ask don't tell" is fair in the sense that commanders and officers alike are barred from asking about the sexuality of soldiers. This levels the playing field to a certain extent. It means that commanders and officers cannot alienate and persecute soldiers out of speculation that they may be gay. This was the compromise that was struck when Bill Clinton sought to enable gays in the military, but was met with heavy resistance. Restrictions on officers and commanders inquiring about the orientation of members of the military was an improvement over the previous policy, which forbid gays and allowed overt inquires and persecutions.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Race/gender analogies: Is DADT analogous to past ban on blacks and women?
|
[ ] Pro
- Military gay ban is analogous to ban on blacks and women Barry M. Goldwater. "Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable" - "Years ago, I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential - period. That seems ridiculous now, as it should. Now, each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man - our own Gen. Colin Powell. [...] Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has, and despite those who feared the worst - I among them - we are still the best and will continue to be. [...] The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight. but we seldom have that luxury. That's why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that's what we need now."
|
[ ] Con
- Race and gender are not comparable to gays in the military. Race and gender are more fundamental than sexual orientation. Race and gender are clearly hereditary, while there is much more room for debate as to whether sexual orientation is hereditary or voluntary, or some mix of both nature and nurture. So, to compare gays in the military with the past debates on women and blacks in the military goes too far.
- "Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is convenient but invalid argument. I believe the privacy rights of all Americans in uniform have to be considered, especially since those rights are often infringed upon by conditions of military service."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Anti-gay violence: Would ending "don't ask don't tell" decrease anti-gay violence?
|
[ ] Pro
- Abandoning "don't ask don't tell" will decrease violence against gays Dr. Aaron Belkin. "Abandoning 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will decrease anti-gay violence." Palm Center. May 1, 2005: "Lessons from foreign armed forces, as well as U.S. police and fire departments that have lifted their bans, reveal that, in the worst case, lifting the gay ban will have no impact on the level of anti-gay abuse. But in the more likely scenario, lifting the ban should decrease violence. [...] After the British lifted the ban, however, there were few reports of gay-bashing. Professor Gwyn Harries-Jenkins, a leading expert on the British military, reported 'a slight decrease in the incidence of harassment.' [...] The reason why anti-gay violence does not increase, and usually decreases after the lifting of a ban is that victims of abuse are able to report harassment without fearing an investigation into their own sexuality. Perpetrators know that victims are more likely to report them, and are therefore less likely to engage in misbehavior in the first place."
|
[ ] Con
- "Don't ask don't tell" keeps orientation secret, protects gays. "Don't ask don't tell" helps keep the sexual-orientation of gays a secret, which protects them from the potential of other servicemen acting violently against them because they are gay. If gays openly stated their sexuality, and if they were more free to enact their homosexual behavior and personalities, they would obviously be much more recognizable as gay, and would be targeted more.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] False accusation: Does "don't ask don't tell" invite false accusation?
|
[ ] Pro
- "Don't ask don't tell" invites hearsay accusations "Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No, Just Don't Be." Jezebel. Feb 11 2009 - "Amy Brian enlisted in the military for 3 years in the 90s, and then came back in 2003 only to be deployed to Iraq. But it was a trip to Wal-Mart that did her in. [...] In that trip, a civilian co-worker at the U.S. Property and Fiscal Office saw Brian kiss her girlfriend. So despite not asking nor telling, she was kicked out of the military. [...] The federal law states the military must have proof of the homosexual conduct, an admission from the soldier or an attempt or successful application for marriage to another gay person by the soldier. [...] Apparently, 'proof' is one person noticing that you're living your personal life on your own terms, and requires no corroboration."
|
[ ] Con
- "Don't ask don't tell" requires clear proof for discharges. "Don't ask don't tell" requires that leaders do not pursue gay individuals unless there is clear evidence/proof that they have engaged in homosexual behavior or a self-admission of engaging in such behavior. Military leaders are charged with not pursuing and prosecuting gay individuals. Evidence must present itself by its own accord. This is a high bar of evidence and proof, consistent with principles of justice and due process.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Costs: Is allowing gays in the military economical?
|
[ ] Yes
- "Don't ask don't tell" has been very costly in dollars "Report: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' costs $363M". USA Today. February 14, 2006 - "Discharging troops under the Pentagon's policy on gays cost $363.8 million over 10 years, almost double what the government concluded a year ago, a private report says. [...] The report, to be released Tuesday by a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission, questioned the methodology the Government Accountability Office used when it estimated that the financial impact of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was at least $190.5 million. [...] 'It builds on the previous findings and paints a more complete picture of the costs,' said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who has proposed legislation that would repeal the policy."
|
[ ] No
- Costs of DADT are justified to uphold military efficacy. Even if it is true that DADT costs the military some money in terms of recruitment and retention, this may be offset and justified by the gains in military efficacy, particularly in regards to upholding unit cohesion. These military and war-fighting benefits clearly justify the relatively small monetary cost of don't ask don't tell.
- Gays in the military would be costly in recruiting/retention. Argued in the section on talent, recruiting, and retention, there is good evidence that there are many members of the military as well as prospective recruits that oppose gays in the military, and who may leave the military or avoid enlisting if gays are allowed to serve openly. This would be very costly in dollar-terms to the military. And, while some homosexuals may be lost via a ban on homosexuals, and while this may be costly, it can easily be argued that this is more than outweighed by the costs of losing opponents to gays in the military.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Compromise: Was "don't ask don't tell" a needed compromise?
|
[ ] Pro
- "Don't ask don't tell" was stepping stone to gays in the military. John Shalikashvili. "Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military". New York Times. January 2, 2007 - "In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take. The compromise that came to be known as 'don’t ask, don’t tell' was thus a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve. [...] The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has."
|
[ ] Con
- "Don't ask don't tell" is a necessary compromise in a divided country. "Don't ask don't tell" was crafted in the early 90s, when the country and the military were deeply divided as to whether gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. The country remains deeply divided on this question. "Don't ask don't tell" strikes an appropriate compromise in this divided environment, avoiding overt approval of homosexuality in the military, while accommodating it.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Military opinion: Where do members of the US military stand?
|
[ ] Pro
- Military opinion has shifted, accepting gays John Shalikashvili. "Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military". New York Times. January 2, 2007 - "Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers. [...] This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems."
- Many US military leaders favor homosexuals serving openly. Lawrence J. Korb. "The Costs of Don't Ask Don't Tell". Center for American Progress. March 2, 2009 - "[Opposition to "don't ask don't tell is] shared by those in the upper ranks of the military as well. General John M. Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' policy was enacted, no longer supports the policy. He now believes that allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military would no longer create intolerable tension among personnel or undermine cohesion."
|
[ ] Con
- Most members of the US military support ban on gays. Americans in the military are inclined to oppose gays serving openly in the military and support "don't ask don't tell". A 2006 opinion poll by the independent Military Times newspapers showed that only 30% of those surveyed think openly gay people should serve. 59% are opposed.[23]
- Barry M. Goldwater. "Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable" - "Unlike polls of civilians, in four annual Military Times Polls announced since 2005, approximately 58% of active duty respondents consistently oppose efforts to repeal what the polls referred to as the 'don't ask don't tell policy'."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] American public opinion: Where does the American public opinion stand?
|
[ ] Pro
- American pubic opinion favors gays in the military Polls have shown that a large majority of the American public favors allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the U.S. military. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants having nothing against openly gay people from serving in the military. In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.[24]
- Military opinion on gays is significantly behind societal opinion. Jeff Cleghorn, a former lawyer with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay-rights group monitoring military justice, said to the Washington Post in June 18, 2004 article, "In the case of some, they get in the Army and they are traumatized by an awareness that the military is 20 years behind the societal curve."[25]
|
[ ] Con
- Gay military service is not widely accepted in US society. A statement issued by the retired officers in March, 2009: "We see a great many downsides to attempting to enforce on the military something I don't know is widely accepted in American society."
- "EDITORIAL: Please don't ask again." Washington Times. October 13, 2009: "The consensus in the military [...] is in the other direction. The most recent Military Times survey showed that 58 percent of military respondents oppose a policy change, and 24 percent said they would either leave the military (10 percent) or consider terminating their careers after serving their tours of duty (14 percent)."
- Opinion shifted on gays in Army only because dissent is bashed. Cal Thomas. "Don't ask don't tell, and don't legitimize." Salt Lake City Tribune. October 15, 2009: "Opinion polls have shown the public shifting in favor of gays in the military, including a recent Gallup poll which found that 'Americans are six percentage points more likely than they were four years ago to favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military, 69 percent to 63 percent.' That is mostly because there are few leaders who wish to give voice to opposing points of view. They fear being shouted down, or being accused of 'homophobia.'"
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pro/con resources:
|
[ ] Yes
- Om Prakash. "The Efficacy of Don't Ask Don't Tell." Winning essay of the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition
- "Obama needs to dump 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' now." Examiner. October 12, 2009
- "Editorial: The Ban on Gays in the Military." The New York Times. June 9, 2009
- John Shalikashvili. "Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military". New York Times. January 2, 2007
- Lou Chibbaro Jr. "Out gay soldiers sent to Iraq." Washington Blade. September 23, 2005
- "Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No, Just Don't Be." Jezebel. Feb 11 2009
- Yoji Cole. "The Personal Horror of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'". Diversity Inc. August 02, 2007
- "‘Dont Ask, Don’t Tell’ Hurts ROTC, Too". The Cornell Daily Sun. February 14th, 2008
- "Colin Powell On Don't Ask, Don't Tell: 'We Should Definitely Re-Evaluate It'". Huffington Post. December 18, 2008
- Stephen Benjamin. "Don't ask, don't translate". New York Times. June 8, 2007
- Lawrence J. Korb. "The Costs of Don't Ask Don't Tell". Center for American Progress. March 2, 2009
- Kyle Dropp and Jon Cohen. "Acceptance of Gay People in Military Grows Dramatically". Washington Post. July 19, 2008
- Barry M. Goldwater. "Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable"
- Anna Quindlen. "The End Of An Error". Newsweek. April 4, 2009
- Aaron Belkin. "Abandoning 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Will Decrease Anti-Gay Violence". Naval Institute: Proceedings Monthly. May 1, 2005
- Lou Chibbaro. "Out gay soldiers sent to Iraq." Washington Blade. September 23, 2005
- "Editorial: Don't ask, don't tell, just act." Emerald Editorial Board. October 15, 2009
- Itamar Eichner. "Follow Israel's example on gays in the military, US study says." YNet News. August 2, 2007
- Bob Barr. "Don't Ask, Don't Cares." The Wall Street Journal. June 13, 2007
- "Editorial: Don't ask, don't tell, just act." Emerald Editorial Board. October 15, 2009
- Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
|
[ ] No
- Cal Thomas. "Don't ask don't tell, and don't legitimize." Salt Lake City Tribune. October 15, 2009
- "EDITORIAL: Please don't ask again." Washington Times. October 13, 2009
- George Neumayr. "Don't Ask, Then Tell." American Spectator. October 15, 2009
- "Barack Obama's Military Adviser Says to Stick With Gay Ban." US News and World Report. October 31, 2008
- "Retired Military Officers: Keep DADT". The Associated Press. April 1, 2009
- Robert Maginnis. "Gays in the Military Debate". Human Events. October 4, 2007
- Letter from the American Center for Military Readiness. March 3, 2009
- Hugh McNichol. “Don’t ask, don’t tell repeal…a slippery moral slope!" Blogger News Network. October 12, 2009
- James Wallace. "The Military's Ban Against Homosexuals Should Remain". The Complete Heretic. July 25, 2009
- John Luddy. "The Military Gay Ban: Why Don't Ask, Don't Tell Don't Work". Heritage Foundation, Executive Memorandum #359. July 1, 1993
- "Repealing 'Don't ask don't tell could be mixed blessing." 4WRD Thinkin Dad
- Patrick Brady. "Migrating to a Quad Sexual Military." Military.com. August 11, 2009
- "Gays in the Military." About.com
- Kat Long. Republican Candidates Approve of Anti-Gay U.S. Military Policy." Suite 101. Jan 13, 2008.
- 1981 Department of Defense policy statement on gay ban in the military (DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), January, 1981):
- "The Pentagon's New Policy Guidelines on Homosexuals in the Military". The New York Times. July 20, 1993
- The "Don't ask, don't tell" law (Federal law Pub.L. 103-160 [10 U.S.C. § 654].)
|
External links
- Aaron Belkin. "Don't ask don't tell". Debating the gay ban in the military.
- "Bill targets 'don't ask, don't tell'". USA Today. March 12, 2007
- "Gays in the Military, The Logistics of the Debate". About.com.
- Bryan Bender. "General's comments boost debate on gays in military". Boston. March 14, 2007
- "Obama to End Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy". Fox News. February 1, 2009
- Leo Shane III. "Obama wants to end don’t ask, don’t tell policy". Stars and Stripes. January 16, 2009
- "Report: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' costs $363M". USA Today. February 14, 2006
- Gordon Lubold. "Former JCS chairman: It’s time to give ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy another look". Air Force Times. January 15, 2007
- Shanker, Tom; Healy, Patrick. "A New Push to Roll Back 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'". New York Times. November 30, 2007
- Laura Miller. "Fighting for justice"
|
|
