The presidential candidates are dividing starkly along party lines on one of the signature fights of the 1990s: whether the 14-year-old policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should be repealed and gay men and lesbians allowed to serve openly in the military.
In back-to-back debates in New Hampshire this week, every Democratic candidate raised his or her hand in support of repealing that policy, while not a single Republican embraced the idea. Democrats argued with striking unanimity that it was time to end the uneasy compromise that President Bill Clinton reached in 1993, after his attempt to lift the ban on gay men and lesbians in the military provoked one of the most wrenching fights of his young administration.
Republicans countered that the policy should not be changed, certainly not in time of war.
It is a dispute that underscores the continuing power of social issues ”” like gay rights and abortion ”” in each party’s nominating contest, even as the larger debate revolves around a divisive war. And it shows the Democrats returning to yet another issue that confounded them in the past ”” like universal health care ”” with the conviction that the public is more ready for change this time.
Democratic leaders have been moving away from “don’t ask, don’t tell” for some time now; Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York renounced the policy in 1999, when she was first running for the Senate. In the 2000 presidential primary campaign, the two leading Democrats, Vice President Al Gore and Senator Bill Bradley, also called for the policy’s repeal.
The issue flared anew because it came up in this week’s debates, not because of any big new campaign initiative on either side. But aside from policy considerations, there is a political rationale for the Democrats’ stance: Gay men and lesbians make up an important part of the Democratic Party’s political and fund-raising base, and voters in general are increasingly tolerant on gay issues related to employment and discrimination, analysts say. While gay marriage remains deeply divisive, allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in time of war has a far more centrist appeal, advocates and analysts say.
Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster who also works for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, argues, “Iraq and the war on terror have created a whole new narrative around the issue of gays serving in the military.” Advocates of changing the policy increasingly argue that it is costing the military talent and manpower it badly needs.
On the other hand, there are political risks, which Republican candidates hinted at this week….
Any gay or lesbian neighbor willing to serve in the military at this time is willing to put his/her life on the line for the rest of us. I think that argument would stand were we fighting a war against, say, a European enemy.
But, we have real operational concerns. Our current enemy portrays us as the invader bringing Western decadence: the deployment of gay/lesbian troops would be a major propaganda tool for them. Yeah, they are full of it, but propaganda doesn’t depend upon truth.
It is a tough issue. There are all kinds of people in the military, certainly not all Christians or even moral exemplars. But the military doesn’t do its ultimate work in civil society. There are tough operational concerns that can’t be thrown aside.
I think one can hold to a Biblical view of homosexual behavior as immoral, believing the Church is not within its rights to endorse such conduct, and yet still oppose the current military policy (actually, it’s not a policy, but a statute). There are many arguments against the current policy, including its effectively encouraging dishonesty, by saying gays can serve but then precluding them from saying they are gay, bizarrely calling that “conduct.” Of greater concern is that those in command, who rightfully need to be able to know what is happening in the lives of their troops, now have an entire group about whom they are forbidden to inquire, and who are forbidden from sharing this often significant part of their life. It makes a difference how a commander employs a person in the middle of personal crisis, for example, and how that commander assembles a team to do this mission or another. To do that the commander needs to know the troops, and know them well. Perhaps the worst part of the current policy and statute, though, is that there is a whole class of troops–those who are homosexual and those willing to falsely state they are–who simply raise their hand, disclose their orientation, and go home. They do not have to fulfill their contractual obligation, and should they wish to avoid Iraq, or Afghanistan, or sea duty, or simply want to take a better-paying job–they can. (And almost all homosexual discharges now are for such voluntary statements.) Meanwhile, heterosexuals are obliged to fulfill their commitments, with no such escape clause. This is destructive of military discipline far more than having gays serve alongside others in the military.
This issue is not an easy one. The old practice of simply barring homosexuals from service at least avoided all of these problems. Given that returning to that rule is politically unfeasible, perhaps there is merit in moving to a conduct-based policy, one that addresses the discipline and morale concerns directly. The status quo, some argue, is the worst but for all the other alternatives. This theologially orthodox conservative Republican is not so sure.
Wow! There’s just too many directions to go on this one.
— Unit morale and integrity.
— Gender and sexuality issues.
— The purpose of the military; microcosm of society v. mission readiness.
— Support services for the military.
— Health care, VA benefits and the definitions of family.
— and on and on.
During WW2 our military was overwhelmingly male, assumed to be heterosexual and often existed in the field in very stark conditions. A commander’s biggest concerns were hot chow, ammunition and the enemy; now he/she has to worry who’s dating whom.
#3 Actually the CO often has to worry about the pregnant/nondeployable rate.
Though society would never support this, a military should not condone sex within the ranks of any type. People philandering with each other simply is a “work place distraction” and usually messes with hierarchical chains of command. The “baggage” that an army or navy carries with it is another matter, but in past centuries nobody in command really cared what sex that baggage was. Now we do for some reason, and that reason needs to reflect our social values, which may be good or bad as the case might be.
Getting rid of discrimination has had no effect on the british Forces – its not even regarded as an ‘issue’ any more.