Close Topic Options

Gays In The Military - Page 2

Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:

I was not in the military so I have little insight into soldiers' attitudes, or whether gays might compromise the cohesion of a combat unit (when their comrades are aware of it).

Personally I think homosexuals are just as capable as heterosexuals, that they have the same desire to serve their country and the right and responsibility to do so. However, to me the most imortant consideration should be how the issue of homosexuality impacts the the strength and effectiveness of our armed forces.

Even though I believe prejudice against homosexuals is wrong, I understand that cultural attitudes evolve over time. If the presence of gays in the military will sow discord and harm the esprit de corps, then I would be opposed despite my belief. The military requires exceptions that may be unacceptable in civilian life.

Nevertheless, I think the military should make efforts to change their culture. They did this very successfully in matters of race. Blacks weren't integrated in the armed forces until after WWII, and stubborn cultural attitudes in the ranks and officer corp were overcome with a determined effort to do what was necessary and just.

I really don't know if in 2004 it is necessary to make that effort regarding homosexuals, but I have little regard for the effort Clinton made shortly after he became president. In my opinion, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was a half-measure that failed to resolve the issue and it was characterized by ambiguity and contradiction.

The policy was ambiguous because it introduced an uncertain set of rules in an organization that demands clarity. Even worse was the inherent contradiction in the proposition that it is OK for gays to serve in the military when their sexual identity is unknown, but that they should be expelled when that same condition becomes known. This sends a very conflicting set of signals that might cause more discord than a straightforward policy of acceptance and integration.

And it was politically stupid for Clinton to take on this issue so early in his presidency. It immediately squandered any chance he might have had to gain acceptance from cultural conservatives, and it made a bad first impression in the military for their commander in chief.

If cultural liberals kept pressing the issue -- which I think is a valid issue of equal treatment for all citizens -- then Clinton should have put the ball in the military's court and enlisted their advice and cooperation in determining whether gays could or should be openly integrated into the armed forces. If it is the right thing to do and if the military leadership is prepared to get behind the effort with discipline and determination, then it should be done.

The primary consideration is what's best for the armed forces. I think eventually the culture will evolve to the point where it's no longer an issue. Whether or not that change can and should be effected at this time is an answer I do not have.

Military The Gays

We just had two female soldiers discharged from the military and now they are happily married. They were good soldiers and did their jobs well. But once they informed the chain of command of their relationship. They had to go. Retention is so bad right now , it's just a matter of time before they allow gays to stay in the military.