A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
Ok, I’m going to give my OPINION about the so-called “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. It’s actually a law, not a military policy as the media would have you believe. Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote about the military’s policy on homosexuals in the military. I explained at least what the Army’s policy on it is, which states:
A person’s sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter and is not a bar to entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct
I then explained the LAW behind why that policy exists. I want to print that law AGAIN because there are still some knuckleheads that seem to think that the DADT policy is a military policy. Title 10 states:
`(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
`(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
`(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
`(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
`(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
`(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
`(7) 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.
`(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that–
`(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
`(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
`(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
`(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
`(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
`(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
`(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
`(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
`(15) 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.
Now, I feel like I can express my opinion on this law since senior leaders are allowed to express theirs. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen has mentioned that he thinks the law should be overturned. He said, “No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity, theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”
I don’t agree. They don’t have to lie since they’re not supposed to talk about it and we’re not allowed to ask. If you keep your mouth shut about being gay, what’s there to lie about? If Admiral Mullen and others think it’s a “lie of omission” then they should pressure Congress to just outright ban homosexuals from serving. Then, everyone’s conscience is clear.
General Ray Odierno is also supportive of removing the ban. He believes that everyone; gay or straight, should be allowed to serve in the military “as long as we’re still able to fight our wars.” I would ask what happens IF (and that’s a big IF) the drop the policy and we AREN’T able to fight our wars. I’m not saying we won’t be able to, but assuming we couldn’t then what’s the plan? Some may ask, “why wouldn’t we be able to fight our wars if we lift the ban?” Easy: the mass exodus of troops (10% or more) that would leave if such a policy were implemented, according to a Military Times study.
Today, thankfully, the Army’s senior officer and Secretary stepped up in contradiction with the realities of what I believe would happen.
Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, testified before a Senate panel that he has “serious concerns about the impact of a repeal of the law on a force that is fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years. We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness.â€
And we don’t! What I want to know is where is the enlisted leadership in all this? And I’m not talking about Sergeants Major. If Congress and the senior military officers REALLY want to know what the impact on the ground would be, they should ask the First Sergeants and company grade officers. The Army is run at the company level where the impact of this policy would be most felt, positive or negative.
All these surveys that go around stating that most Soldiers think the ban should be lifted must be a special bunch. I kid you not – I have not met ONE person who has taken ANY survey on the DADT policy and the effects of possibly lifting it. So, who is really taking these polls? There are over a million service members in uniform and they find 3,000 somewhere that are supposed to represent them all.
The truth is that the military is already breaking the law with the DADT policy. Basically, according to LAW, homosexuals are actually prohibited from serving in the military. So, it’s a bit odd that our regulations state that “a person’s sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter and is not a bar to entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct.” This actually directly contradicts the law of the land; in other words – illegal!
My personal opinion is that I don’t think we should lift the ban. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it opens up a can of worms we don’t want to open. The military isn’t like 99% of the rest of society. Military service is completely different than working at a Burger King, preparing someone’s taxes, selling Sony Playstations, or laying concrete. It involves sharing intimate parts of your life with members of the same sex who, presumably, won’t fall in love with you and make a pass.
This policy is NOTHING like the arguments of allowing blacks or women into the military as some assert. As a matter of fact, that’s a stupid and ludicrous assertion. Being black is an ethnicity. There are no moral codes surrounding whether or not someone is black, just as there are no moral codes about why someone is a woman. You can’t hide that you’re black and you can’t hide that you’re a female (well, most of the time). So, the parallel is ignorant.
Read my other posts on this topic HERE and HERE.
[Author's Note: The OPINIONS expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent those of any agency of the United States Government, expressly including, but not limited to, the Department of Defense or the United States Army. This site is not designed, authorized, sanctioned, or affiliated, by or with, any agency of the United States Government, expressly including, but not limited to, the Department of Defense or the United States Army. This post is in accordance with DODD 1344.10, which expressly permits me to "express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces." Therefore, I hereby declare that I do not write this post as a representative of the Armed Forces. Since I no longer own this site, consider this post also in compliance with the provisions of paragraph 4.1.1.6 of DODD 1344.10.]
(14) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
to Anonn, thank you. i thought so. i just want a clear picture of his
Military Dating Scams (More Nigerian Scammers)
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
[UPDATE] The "Face" of Military Dating Scams - The Wall of Shame
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
Old Cav LT
Well met, CJ. Nothing more to add.
Bob The Liberal
CJ, I respect your opinion. I may not agree with it, but I respect it.
As you did say, it is the LAW, not just policy. It would be easier to change if it was just policy. If the economy hadn’t crashed and burned, I think the repeal would have been done by now, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act repealed as well.
With so many Americans being out of work because of the economy, this has taken a backburner. Yes, it will still pop up from time to time, but don’t expect it to go through anytime soon. Maybe in another year or two, it will, but for now, no. There are more important things to deal with first.
(Just for the record, I don’t agree with everything the administration has done. I think they should have let the banks die. I do agree with the automotive bailout though. At least with that, we’ll make some money off of it.)
Damon
You may think this a trivial point but the best phrase in the article was “I kid you not”. When ever a senior NCO uses that phrase I’ve come to expect a sound point to follow which causes me to listen close.
And in this case … it did. I’ve always questioned the validity of the sample pool for these so-called polls. The military ain’t that big a family. Yah ought to meet at least ONE person who has been polled…
SGM B
another very real challenge with a change to this law and the consequent policy for the DoD is that we currently have a set of benefits paid on the basis of marriage. Since it is a fact that most states do not allow any form of gay marriage, how does the military deal with “domestic partners”?
This is more than an arcane point. Service members stand to gain thousands of tax free dollars based on such relationships that straight service members will never be entitled to.
In addition, basic reform of most of the UCMJ will be required because in the military, sex with ANY person who is not your legal spouse violates the UCMJ and is punishable.
This does not even begin to discuss room mate arrangements in the barracks, etc.
This issue is a pandora’s box related issues, as the Israeli’s, Canadians, Dutch, and Brits have found.
Bob The Liberal
I have a remedy for that. Follow federal law. Currently, federal law does not recognize same sex marriages. And when it does, and it will, then implement it.
MSG R
I kind of agree with SGM B. He is correct about the benefits of a married soldier. Will the military recognize partner and will they be able to live on post in housing beside the traditional military family. What about the Army Balls when the spouses are dressed with their husbands in dress blues. Not sure what to think. I met gay soldiers and they are good, but I don’t want to be forced to accept the lifestyle in the military. I think the law should be left alone. It works and we still work together as a team.
Alan High
Hello,
I am a Navy Veteran, 7 years, 2 countries served in, 5 separate commands, ship board the first 4 years, ended my tour at a Naval Air Station. I am also a conservative Republican, operations manager for a civilian audio video company, and gay.
These statements are completely wrong and based on nothing more that opinion. I’ve not seen research, articles, or studies that looked into the sociological or psychological research that has been done in these areas.
`(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
`(15) 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.
The key, I believe, is the definition of high standards of morality. The ability of an individual to understand honor, duty, and commitment as the qualities of their character is what defines a person. If those are the things that drive a person and not their sexual identity then service in the military can be possible and is often pursued out a sense of duty to one’s country.
There were (4) gay service members in my shipboard division. Three of them were the best sailors I’d worked for both professionally, militarily, and personally. The fourth was young, more intent on his own needs and desires, and lazy in personal disciple and mental habits. He was not good for the Navy not because he was gay but for matters of character.
After four years of working with these people day in and day out several knew I was gay. I never said it because too me it wasn’t important and had nothing to do with why I was in the Navy. I think the problem arises from what people “think†being gay is. I blame the hard left gay community and Hollywood for creating an image that is extreme to most people as to be offensive.
That being said I’m on the fence about the DADT policy. The logistics of having what is essentially a third sex in Navy is problematic. On the ship we had two berthing areas for men and women so do we add a third for gay and lesbian berthing? With the advent of women on submarines do we relax the gender boundary completely and go to co-ed berthing? Disciplined individuals can work, live, sleep in the same environment. As was pointed out there is no expectation of privacy in the military due to the nature of the work and there is a code of conduct for behavior already in place.
I don’t know the answer but leaving patriotic, honorable, duty driven people out of the military because they are gay shouldn’t be part of it.
Chad
CJ,
You have served as my rater and senior NCO. I’ve been at holiday gatherings with you and met you and your family. You are a good man. But you’re wrong. It’s your opinion, and this is your blog, but you’re wrong.
You say I don’t have to lie because it’s a personal matter. When the FRG gets together with the unit and threw those Christmas parties where you dressed up in your elf hats and the company invited all the families to attend, I was alone. I was alone because my partner of 7 years couldn’t come. You flaunted your sexuality by engaging in Public Displays of Affection with your spouse, and I’m not allowed to wear the ring my partner bought me before his last deployment to Iraq, where he served as the lead interrogator for the Navy SEAL team.
When I was deployed and my partner sent me care packages, and someone would ask who it was from, I lied. The name is clearly marked on the box. I would say my friend. My roommate. Now I know you would never call your wife your roommate CJ. To say so would demean the relationship. This was a man who spent every spare cent to send enough goodies for my entire team. I got a box the size to hold a TV filled with soups, crackers, Oreos and all sorts of stuff, and I got it every three weeks like clockwork, and a card every other day, even after he had to ship out to Bahrain, he still sent stuff to me and my team. To simply call him a roommate is as like for you to call your wife your housekeeper and babysitter. So I lied, and my integrity as a Soldier and as a Military Intelligence Professional was tarnished.
You state we have NO IDEA how this will affect us. But there are plenty of examples for us to observe, should you take the time. Canada (which is about as close to American culture as you can get) lifted the ban in 1992 with no ill effects, no mass exodus. Great Britain lifted their ban in 1999. Our Soldiers have served with these people, openly, in combat zones. What ill effect have there been?
American Psychological Association states:
Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention (Belkin, 2003; Belkin & Bateman, 2003; Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996; MacCoun, 1996; National Defense Research Institute, 1993).
Comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments show that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness (Belkin & McNichol, 2000–2001; Gade, Segal, & Johnson, 1996; Koegel, 1996).
When openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces (Cammermeyer v. Aspin, 1994; Watkins v. United States Army, 1989/1990), there has been no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness.
The U.S. military is capable of integrating members of groups historically excluded from its ranks, as demonstrated by its success in reducing both racial and gender discrimination (Binkin & Bach, 1977; Binkin, Eitelberg, Schexnider, & Smith, 1982; Kauth & Landis, 1996; Landis, Hope, & Day, 1984; Thomas & Thomas, 1996).[
CJ, I know you have faced a hard time of things with your PTSD. I have those issues too. Stress, past and current contributes to that. Add to that the stress of hiding who you are from those you work closest to, those you are supposed to be able to trust with your lives. CJ, you were my First Sergeant. But how does it feel to know that your Soldier CANNOT trust you?
CJ
Chad, don’t misunderstand my stance of allowing openly gay people into the military with my stance on homosexuality. Personally, I think it’s wrong that gays can’t be married in this country “legally”. I don’t think it’s the government’s job to decide who can and can’t love each other.
With that said, I still believe it is incompatible with military service. It does affect other people and yours is a great example. I had to deal with the fact that people thought they knew about you. I told them to focus on their jobs and stay in their lane, that you violated no regulations…yet. But, I can tell you definitively that it made people nervous and leery. I dealt with that as a 1SG but had to see past rumor and innuendo. In that particular job, we don’t have to worry about the sorts of issues that arise in most units with regard to close quarters. You didn’t live in the barracks.
I don’t want to get into the personal aspect of this because I don’t want to jeopardize your career by violating anything – statement, act or marriage. I’m always willing to speak with you personally, though.
I’m a little confused about why you don’t trust me though. Why not? I’ve never compromised my integrity.
Chad
No, but I was forced to compromise mine.
Chad
Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, three (Britain, France, Russia) permit gay people to serve openly, and two (United States, China) do not
CJ
“More than 22″? Is that 23? 24? Seems odd to say “more than” a number like 22. Hmmm…just looking at that list, I’d put the two non-gay militaries up against every one of the gay military any day.
Emily
I just think that’s a far fetched statement, and a broad one. I know for a fact that A LOT of my husband’s time was spent babysitting that office up there, so……who couldn’t trust whom?
Chad
please understand that none of my above statements were made in anger or malice. As I said CJ, you are a good man, one of the finest 1SGs I’ve known. My words were spoken more from resigned saddness.