Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell vs. The Land of the Free
Trey's Spaz Attack
Written by Trey J.   
Monday, 01 February 2010 08:00

This marks the 17th year that the American military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding homosexuals in the armed forces has been in effect. That’s a really long time for such a stupid rule. With the stigma of homosexuality long diminished in the eyes of the modern world, it’s time for the military to catch up. 

Uncle Sam endorses Don't Ask, Don't TellImagine being young and full of enough love for your country that all you want is to serve in the military. There’s just one catch: you’re gay. So now, you have two options: 1) enlist and keep your sexual orientation a secret from everyone, or 2) admit your sexual orientation and forget all about serving because the military won’t have you. There are no alternatives. You either deny yourself and join, or be yourself at the cost of your dream. Welcome to America, home of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of military service.

While this has been military enlistment policy since 1993, I never gave it much thought until it was brought up by President Obama at his State of the Union address last week. “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,” he said. It was just one sentence in his 90-minute speech (50 minutes of speaking and 40 minutes of applause, anyway), but it was met with thunderous applause from everyone in the chamber (seriously, elected officials should really show some fucking restraint). Well, all sides but the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President’s military advisors. For some reason, they didn’t budge at this proclamation.

Maybe they were showing typical military discipline. Or maybe they don’t want to change “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Maybe they want to continue discriminating based on sexual orientation in this day and age. Maybe homosexuals are still victims of the government just like black people and women once were. Maybe America is not the land of the free, just the land of the free unless you’re openly gay and want to serve in the military. For a country that sees itself as setting an example for the rest of the world, it’s doing a pretty shitty job in this category. There are still places in the world where homosexuality is punishable by death, you know.

Which is the gay one?Speaking of death, think about those soldiers stationed in the Middle East right now. It is hot, and the gear they’re wearing only makes it hotter. It is dusty, and the sand gets in their eyes and under their clothes and the gravel gets in their boots. There is no shade in the desert from the scorching sun. And right now, a squad of soldiers stationed in that miserable place is in the middle of a firefight, pinned down by enemy combatants who want to kill them. One of them is already dead, a gunshot wound to the head spilling his blood into the sand. Right now, they are not fighting for America or for freedom or for you or for me; they are just fighting to survive. This is happening right now.

I guaran-fucking-tee you that no one in that squad right now gives a shit and a nickel about his comrades’ sexuality.

But the military does, and that’s the crazy part. The military needs to focus on keeping the country safe and its troops alive, not wasting its time and resources on the sexuality of its members. It’s an insult to both the country it serves and the people it employs that the military even cares about something so trivial.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” represses homosexuals who want to serve their country, plain and simple. It lets a male soldier ogle the women in Playboy, but not the men in Playgirl. It is a policy that lets someone married to a member of the opposite sex live on a military base, but forbids same sex marriage in the military entirely. For a military that always needs more troops, they’re doing a great job of limiting themselves with this discriminating policy.

DADTWhat is the military afraid of? Maybe they think that if openly gay men are allowed to enlist that all of a sudden the barracks will become orgiastic daisy chains full of men having gay butt-sex in their downtime. I am pretty sure that is not going to happen. Maybe they are worried that if they abolish “don’t ask, don’t tell,” they’ll just be making themselves into matchmakers for gay enlisted men. News flash: soldiers are already not allowed to get romantically involved. Or maybe some people are just afraid of getting checked out by a pair of unwanted, amorous eyes in the community showers. Actually, that last one may already be happening but no one would know about it because the person doing the out-checking is required to keep his orientation a secret. Ironically, that’s a scenario in which “don’t ask, don’t tell” actually works to the closeted homosexual’s advantage.

Homosexuality is not contagious, and not all homosexuals are limp-wristed flamers. Allowing them in the military will not turn our soldiers into a bunch of pussies. The military still needs strong men and women, so they wouldn’t recruit a pussy whether he was gay or not. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is an insult to what the United States stands for. If we can have a black man in the White House, then we can have a gay man in the military.

DADT discharges

 

Comments  

 
0 #1 Dominik B. 2010-02-01 13:32
Quote:
they didn’t budge at this proclamation.

Maybe because they just didn't care. I'm perfectly willing to entertain that as a possibility. If you look at it from their point of view, it really doesn't matter. The Joint Chiefs probably will never meet a soldier who could be affected by DADT. In fact, they don't meet much army in general. The guys having to deal with it directly are way below that.

Quote:
Maybe America is not the land of the free

It hasn't been for quite some time, really. It could be, but it would require some work.

Quote:
For a country that sees itself as setting an example for the rest of the world, it’s doing a pretty shitty job in this category.

Trust the bloody foreigner: It is doing a pretty shitty job of being an example in pretty much every category you could possibly come up with. But with a bit of work, all of that could be fixed.

Quote:
News flash: soldiers are already not allowed to get romantically involved.

Like that has ever stopped someone from falling in love and/or having wild sex.

Quote:
That last graph there, with the discharges.

For a military force that has a combined strength of just a bit over 2 Million people, 1273 discharges seem to be... puny. That's a grand total of 0.0621141 et cetera percent. The fun thing? Statistics like these prove that these measures and policies are little more than paper tigers.
Quote
 
 
0 #2 Sully Eliot 2010-02-01 21:48
I remember reading about DADT and learning that it was implemented because of homophobic soldiers or hazing or something. It's not that the people who implemented it were homophobic (which you seem so ready to assume), it's that they were trying to protect homosexuals from harassment.

In a military environment, you need teams to function cohesively as a unit. If there's a romantic relationship or any kind of sexual tension within a military unit, that cohesion is lost, the morale drops, and the unit ceases to be effective. That's the other primary reason that DADT was implemented. I see no problems with either.

I think you, and many others, are really too quick to assume that a minority (less than 7% or so of the general populace; enough to be completely inconsequential ) group is being unreasonably discriminated against (there's nothing wrong with discrimination unless it's unreasonable) and not taking into account any rational reason for why such a system has been implemented.

I'm not defending DADT; I understand there have been plenty of problems with it. But I also realize it was put in place to protect as many people as possible. It's good to see that, during the Bush administration, discharges from DADT dropped significantly, whereas under the Clinton administration which implemented it, they showed no signs of stopping.

Dom made several points that I would have made, so now I don't need to.
Quote
 
 
0 #3 Trey J. 2010-02-02 04:21
All good points, no argument here.

Dom: You're right. America is in the shitter in the eyes of the world these days, regardless of its own opinion of itself. That's why DADT bothers me; it's just further proof of how deluded the country has become about its place in the big scheme of thing.

Sully: You make an excellent point. DADT probably protects more people than I give it credit for. But if that's the case, then the problem lies with the soldiers and not the Joint Chiefs, and that's even worse. Like I said, a soldier shouldn't give a shit and a nickel about his comrade's sexuality. Homophobia shouldn't be a problem in the American military, whether from the Joint Chiefs in the White House or the soldiers on the ground.
Quote
 
 
0 #4 Sully Eliot 2010-02-02 13:29
I get that, but just because something shouldn't mean a problem doesn't mean it isn't.
Quote
 
 
0 #5 Trey J. 2010-02-02 17:31
I'd prefer a military that banned homophobes to a military that banned homosexuals. That probably wouldn't improve the recruiting numbers, though.
Quote
 
 
0 #6 Patrick S. 2010-02-02 19:49
Quoting Trey J.:
I'd prefer a military that banned homophobes to a military that banned homosexuals. That probably wouldn't improve the recruiting numbers, though.


Because no one would ever lie about something like that.
Quote
 
 
0 #7 Trey J. 2010-02-04 21:30
Like racism and all forms of bigotry, homophobia is not something that is easy to hide. Hate always has a way of showing itself.
Quote
 

Add comment

Security code
Refresh