We’ve all heard the debate points over DADT. “People will refuse to re-enlist or will resign commissions.” “America is ready for the change.” “Allowing open homosexuality in the ranks will case order and discipline problems.” “Gay Americans have rights.”
All the clichéd and nonsensical arguments aside (especially that last one), I’ve come across three arguments against DADT that I haven’t heard before. As with the issue of gay marriage, I’m going to list the points and then give you a bit of my opinion. I’m going to forgo the moral/ethical/religious angles and focus on logic, law, precedent, and experience.
If you’re reading this, and disagree (at all) or agree (at all) or have anything to say (at all), please feel free to comment. One of the reasons I write is so that I can force myself to learn about new topics and examine both sides of an issue. If I don’t know what you’re thinking, or you don’t give me either feedback or new points to consider, I’m probably going to keep on writing slightly leaning towards my own opinions…and reading the gist of my own thoughts can get quite old.
1. DADT repeal and black integration are non-comparable.
Q: So what’s the issue?
A: Logic
Just like with gay marriage, you can’t compare integrating homosexuality with desegregation. Why? They’re two different things. First, sex is more often a stronger self identifier than race. Do you make more decisions during the day (which type of deodorant to buy, what movies to watch, what magazines to read) because you’re a man or a woman or because you’re white or black? Second, the nation was at peace and relatively unified after WW2. Racial integration happened in 1948, and the Korean war didn’t start until the summer of 1950. Finally, and this is the most important point, black and white units already existed and fought side by side. No, they weren’t fully integrated, but there were open, transparent, legal all black units. We don’t have legal, open, all homosexual units today; and, because of this difference, it’s important to note that in 1948 blacks were already officially accepted into the Armed Forces. You can’t make the comparison between repealing DADT and integrating black units because the military currently doesn’t accept open homosexuals or allow open homosexuality. If you want a more accurate comparison, you would have to say that repealing DADT is just like accepting the first black man into the military…but I haven’t heard anyone make that point yet.
2. DADT repeal will bring about discrimination…in favor of homosexuals.
Q: So what’s the issue?
A: Fairness, political correctness
This is where experience comes in, and I have two stories for you.
The first one is from the military college I attended. The college is divided into 40 groups of 100-120 students, and each semester a new student is selected to be the commander. Keep in mind that while my school did have many people of many ethnic, religious, and geographic backgrounds (as well as international students from almost every continent), demographically it was approx. 80% male. During the first semester of my senior year, a few students made their candidacy for commander known to our officer in charge (who was not a student). He weighed each applicant’s merits, interviewed them, and chose the one he thought was best suited to lead. Our squadron had 4 or 5 men apply for the job. One of them, a superb candidate, was prior enlisted, a technical major, well liked, and incredibly proficient. After all groups had chosen commanders, the results were submitted to the school leadership. Through fate and happenstance, every single commander chosen was male. Remembering the demographics, and noting that several groups did not have any women applying for the position, this was not very surprising. What was surprising was leaderships reaction. The situation was deemed unacceptable, and several groups were forced to choose commanders who weren’t male (and in some cases, who weren’t male OR white). We ended up with a commander who, though very smart, was more academic than military and nowhere near as qualified to lead. Not wanting to repeat the situation, our commanding officer gave the next semester’s command position to the girl’s roommate (who was also more academic than military) over another prior enlisted cadet.
The second story comes almost two years later. We were required to complete an online training course, “Homosexual Awareness Policy”, as part of our job. Our break room has inboxes to deposit certificates of completion when finished. During a commander’s call, it was brought up that someone had scratched out the word “-sexual” on the inbox label so that it now read “Homo Awareness Training”. Our commanding officer was very upset, commenting on this individuals unprofessional behavior and the fact that there is a zero tolerance policy for this kind of “discrimination”. I found it odd that someone would complain (remembering that Bert from Sesame Street tweeted a while back that his mohawk was more “mo” than “hawk”, or more frizzy than awesome, and members of the gay community reacted with excited appreciation…apparently “mo” is gay short slang for “homo”, which is a self identifying term)- but what I found more puzzling was that we were being told that we were expected to respect something that our official policy doesn’t condone. Imagine being told to respect capital punishment if your state doesn’t allow it. Does that make any sense?
People on the left tell me all the time that repealing DADT will ease gays’ fears of discrimination, and people on the right say that open homosexuality could breed even more angst as people could discriminate against gays more openly. But no one’s ever mentioned how discrimination AGAINST people who think open homosexuality is wrong will become the standard, and how favoritism for people who are gay will increase. The first time I heard of Gen. Chappie James wasn’t in a discussion about awesome fighter pilots, but in a speech about first black (fill in the blanks). People were more excited about his position of the first black General than his accomplishments. Ever heard of Nicole Malachowski? If you have, it wasn’t because she’s a competent pilot- it was because she’s the first female thunderbird pilot. People will get promoted due to their orientation (the first gay admiral, the first gay brigade commander, the first gay special operations colonel) and people will be discriminated against because of their views on orientation. Speaking of spec ops, since women aren’t allowed, will gay men be? The marines have a problem with open homosexuality in close quarters living because unlike other services marines bunk two-to-a-room for unit cohesion and the buddy system security. Imagine 7 guys dropped behind foreign lines for months with no-one but their own team to rely on, and 2 or even 4 of the men are gay. How would that affect unit mission? (Please don’t tell me “It shouldn’t!” We’re dealing in hypothetical realisms here, not hypothetical idealisms. Soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are people too. Sometimes being from rival schools causes small amounts of unit friction.)
And, since discrimination against people who aren’t pro-gay will happen, what of chaplains? Chaplains have three hats: one for members of their own faith (where they act as clergy), one for members of other faiths (where they act as facilitators, stand ins, and middle men so military members can eventually get what they need), and confidential counselors for people seeking non-religious help. If a man comes to a chaplain, priest, or rabbi with marital problems, and the chaplain, priest, or rabbi finds out it’s marital problems with another man, what’s the chaplain to do? Should the priest council a man who’s committing what the priest believes to be a grave sin? Surely he can’t say “Go and sin no more”, as Jesus would, because that would be anti-homosexual discrimination. And since chaplains are paid by the military to practice religion, supporting the thousands and thousands of believers in uniform, should chaplains be asked to violate their conscience to support DoD sexual policy?
3. DADT repeal could cause interstate legal issues.
Q: So what’s the issue?
A: State vs Federal law
One of the benefits of being in the military is health and legal care. Despite what they may tell you, health care is not free. We do pay for it. It's also the closest thing to socialized medicine in the US (which is another story). When a military member joins the force, his or her dependents (read: spouse and/or children) are enrolled in Tricare (military health company). This allows dependents and members to receive treatment or care when necessary at various military installations around the globe. The key factor here is the dependency status. Without it, members would not be able to PCS (move) from base to base or station to station with their families. Dependency status gives spouses and children legal rights (ie, visitation in hospital, inheritability, tax filing purposes, etc) that any other married couple or person with children would normally have. The key word here is normally, and it's important because if DADT is repealed, the military would have to then tackle the issue of gay dependency.
Repealing DADT will show that the DoD supports homosexuality and, as by product, gay "rights". The second most hotly contested issue at the moment is gay marriage. If the DoD were to open the ranks to homosexuals without caveat it would be faced with the issue of preexisting homosexual marriages. Since the federal government does not recognize a non male-female union as a valid marriage, the DoD's stance on the issue becomes a problem. This leaves the Department with two options. It could either not recognize any existing gay "spouses" as DoD dependents (this would result in a multitude of discrimination lawsuits against the Department) or it could honor the State laws on marriage, but only within the state. This, however, would be illegal as the higher governing body (the US Federal Government) does not recognize homosexual marriages... and the DoD cannot, and should not, go against higher standing federal statutes.
Of course, should DADT fade away, gay rights activists would use it as a stepping stone and valid excuse for national recognition of gay marriage. "Gay servicemen and women are no longer separate and unequal, but they are most certainly still unequal" these activists would say. Because gay men and women in uniform are not allowed to have same-sex spouses while serving, they would be used as an example of discrimination based on sexual orientation; and, since this is the exact type of discrimination that would be banned with the loss of DADT, recognition of homosexual marriage by the federal government would be the second and last step towards complete anti-discrimination. Once the federal government recognizes homosexual marriage for DoD purposes, pro-gay activists could use this as a basis for overturning both a State's right to decide the issue for itself and the DOMA.
Say a married gay man from Massachusetts or Iowa were to enlist, and was stationed in Texas after basic training. Under MA state law, he has a husband. Under Texas state law, he doesn't. Under Federal Law, per DOMA, gay marriage is officially neither recognized nor supported by the federal government. Per the 10th Amendment, gay marriage is Constitutionally a States' rights issue by default because it is not an issue delegated to the federal government. What does this mean? This means that per both Constitution and federal law, the States have final say over who and isn't married within their borders.
Of course, should DADT fade away, gay rights activists would use it as a stepping stone and valid excuse for national recognition of gay marriage. "Gay servicemen and women are no longer separate and unequal, but they are most certainly still unequal" these activists would say. Because gay men and women in uniform are not allowed to have same-sex spouses while serving, they would be used as an example of discrimination based on sexual orientation; and, since this is the exact type of discrimination that would be banned with the loss of DADT, recognition of homosexual marriage by the federal government would be the second and last step towards complete anti-discrimination. Once the federal government recognizes homosexual marriage for DoD purposes, pro-gay activists could use this as a basis for overturning both a State's right to decide the issue for itself and the DOMA.
Say a married gay man from Massachusetts or Iowa were to enlist, and was stationed in Texas after basic training. Under MA state law, he has a husband. Under Texas state law, he doesn't. Under Federal Law, per DOMA, gay marriage is officially neither recognized nor supported by the federal government. Per the 10th Amendment, gay marriage is Constitutionally a States' rights issue by default because it is not an issue delegated to the federal government. What does this mean? This means that per both Constitution and federal law, the States have final say over who and isn't married within their borders.
Section 2 of Public Law 104-199 states that:
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
This means that no State is required to respect the homosexual marriage of another State if it doesn't want to. So what? you might ask. Military bases are DoD installations. The issue would be a base one, not a State one. Perhaps, but care is sometimes required off base. If a gay man's husband needed major surgery in downtown Huston, he would not be considered a spouse in the state. The military would essentially be paying for a servicemember's male "partner" to undergo surgery, not a servicemember's spouse. This also raises the question of whether or not the DoD is going against federal policy since the federal government of the United States does not recognize homosexual marriage. Who would have the upper hand here? States, and their rights of definition? The federal government, in it's non-acceptance of gay marriage? The DoD, in it's requirement to fully accept homosexuality?
Obviously these are questions that will present themselves, in some form or fashion, as the issue continues. In Part 2 I'll share a link or two and a few of my own thoughts on the issue.
