Don't Ask, Don't Tell
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-10-13/dont-ask-dont-tell
A federal judge orders the Pentagon to stop enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding openly gay and lesbian troops: What the ruling means for the U.S. military worldwide and politics at home.
Guests
Evan Perez
reporter, Wall Street Journal
Tommy Sears
executive director,Center for Military Readiness
Alex Nicholson
executive director, Servicemembers United
Karlyn Bowman
resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Hello Diane, while I agree that don't ask don't tell is unconstitutional I have some questions about the effects regarding it's repeal. How would it effect soilders when they have to take showers and bunk together? If a strait soldier did not want to take a shower or bunk with a homosexual soldier would he/she be forced to? I ask because as I understand soldiers of the opposite sex are not required to shower/bunk together. I was wondering if this rule would also apply to sexual orientation?
Polls. Polls. Polls. Diane, I could not care less about what any poll may show in terms of public opinion. At the beginning of the civil right movement if a poll had been taken I dare say you would have found the vast majority of Americans where against civil rights based on race. The same would have probably been true when the military was fully integrated. SO WHAT? If we appeal the the lesser of our angels to guide us no such progress would ever have been made.
How much do cliches about homosexuals inform opinions about how capable they are of fighting? I often sense that there is a foregone conclusion that gay men cannot or will not display the type of assertiveness that is important in battle. Stereotypes about masculinity and homosexuality need to be revisited.
Ma'am,
I humbly submit that the reasons that these public opinion polls support homosexuals serving openly is twofold:
1. A razor-thin percentage of the American public have ever served. Smaller and smaller percentages of Americans have relatives who have served.
2. Experts understand completely and the general public understand at a more unconscious level that there will most probably never again be a general conflict between nation-states. If there ever was an existential threat to this country, the best and brightest would be compelled to serve.
As a black man, having served aboard submarines and in the Army, I was of two minds about this at first. However, I was born black. I still cannot get my mind around being born lesbian or electing to undergo surgery to change gender.
I have 26 years of enlisted active service.
Thank you.
The judge DID NOT rule that there is a constitutional right to serve in the military; she ruled that it is unconstitutional for congress to deprive military members of their basic constitutional rights. The DOD stance of incompatibility of homosexuality with military service is based purely on opinions and attitudes, and not on science or irrefutable evidence of detriment to morale, readiness, or performance. Furthermore, the american military has ALWAYS directed military members as to which personal opinions and attitudes may be expressed while serving.
CONDUCT??? What about all the spousal abuse that the soldiers do on there off time?
Ryan: That's a silly question (re: showers). Gay men are men. Lesbians are women. There is no need for separate showers. Gay men and women are already in the military and soldiers already share showers/quarters together.
If you have been in college gym classes & showers, gym showers, etc. you have most likely taken a shower around a gay person with no ill effects. Any man making unwanted advances on another male will be dealt with by himself or his peers.
The real problem in the military is that studies show that 30% of women in the military have suffered from sexual harassment from their male peers/leaders. The problem currently is not the gays in the military, it's the straight men.
I take exception with many of Mr. Sears's statements, but one I think is very offensive is that we should only count the opinions of "likely voters" when measuring public opinion. Studies have shown that people's likelihood of voting depends on many variables, including age, race, income, and education level, and so, he is discriminating based on those issues. We need to remember that non-voters are also citizens, with every right guaranteed to the rest of us. Furthermore, one reason many eligible voters, including young people, do not vote is because they believe their voice is not heard. We need to encourage, not discourage, them to vote by showing them that they also matter.
We are using to many pole rating to establish a rationale. I have a problem with gays in the military because is going to have an impact on Roomate and shower.
I f I can shower with a gay person and be roomate with a gay person, I should also be allowed to have a female roomate.
This will also not work in an Infantry unit were...the Macho type attitute drives the energy of a combat envioronment....
I wonder what Mr. Sears has to say about the high rate of rate of rapes of women in the military; are these done by homosexual or heterosexual men?
The panel today does not seem to add much information to the issue at hand. Mr. Sears seems to be making it up as he goes along. Mr. Nicholson, while sympathetic, is clearly not an expert in this area. Why couldn't you have found a laywer from say the Human Rights Campaign, or other legal organizations or law professors who are actually working on this issue?
I served as an Infantry Officer in the early 1960s U.S. Army. I had in my commands a number of Gay servicemen. None impeded or endangered the readuness or integrity of the units. In fact their performance exceeded the norm required.
Additionally, as my service was only a dozen years after the racial integration of the Armed forces, I can attest that there was no overt, or even clandestine, effort to prevet African-Americans from serving aznd rising in the Service to the best of their ability.
So, My observation, and experience, tells me that the question of Whether The Armed Forces are able to absorb and accept Gays, Lesbians etc. is as absurd as was the question whether The Armed Forces are able to absorb and accept African -Americans.
Been there. Done that. move on America.
Lauritz K. Knudsen
Good Morning Diane and guests,
Why are we spending so much time talking about polls? Before the Military was desegregated and again before women were admitted into combat roles, the American public was overwhelmingly opposed to both. In retrospect very few people today (I'm afraid there are still some) believe that any of these moves were wrong. This is a matter of what is RIGHT under our constitution as well as morally! Homophobia, is homophobia! Racism is racism! Sexism is sexism! Bigotry by any other name, is still bigotry!!!
We have a citizen military. It should be made up of all Citizens!
Is Tommy Sears really asking us to believe that having gays and lesbians openly serving in the military would be more disruptive than having women serve or forced integration?
It is quite interesting that the retired military personnel that are calling in and in support of the Don’t ask Don’t tell to be removed are all “officers”. Their interaction with troops is very different from those of the rank and file. I am surprised, and so should the rest of the heterosexuals in the military members that have to live up close and personal with someone that is openly gay or lesbian are not given the opportunity to speak up and speak loud regarding this issue.
@ RyanOConnor86
The idea that all Gay men are attracted to all other men regardless of sexual orientation is a myth.
The idea that all Gay men are promiscuous predators unable to control their sexuality is also a myth.
These stereotypes contradict the very nature of the military: you are there to serve, not date. Those Gay men who love the military (prioritize it above all else and who fear discovery and discharge) are especially disinterested in compromising their careers for an uncharacterstic and undisciplined mistake. They didn't enlist to find a boyfriend.
I totally disagree with gay serving openly in the military. The don’t ask Don’t tell rules covers everybody. Yes, they are openly gays and lesbians in the military, but obviously the command is not doing their job to uphold the law. It may not be agreed by all but as of right now, it’s the law, and straight, gays and lesbians must abide by it. DO remember, the military is not a democracy. Yes, I serve many years and just recently returned from IZ. This will not work in an Infantry or High Octane Unit......I am not being negative, I am being realistic......Poles do not fight wars.... We need to stop sugar coating the military, is a brute environment. I do not like that gays and lesbians lives being damage, because 90% of them are true patriots and heroes, but I also do not want the readiness of the fighting troops to suffer because of morale.....
Also the issue about a straight soldier being roommate with a gay or lesbians, after a few weeks, it really going to get unconfy. So if we let openly gays and lesbians in the military, I should then have the right to choose a female as a roommate. Let not talk about pole and numbers, That take the human effect out of things…..
I agree with you. No one is addressing the effect on the straight soldier that is ordered to roomate with the gay...Is that also going to be an issue?
THe problem also stems that if straight soldiers speak, they will be labelled...HOMOFOBE....or just politically incorrect. I bet, 80 percent of the fighting units.. I mean combat troops..not combat support would desagree with gays and lesbians in the military....
@ sperez1965
Has it dawned on you Gay soldiers are ALREADY rooming and showering with straight soldiers and have been doing so for decades without incident or disruption to "unit cohesion"???
If straight soldiers are freaked out rooming and showering with other soldiers who are Gay IT'S THEIR PROBLEM. The disruption to "unit cohesion" IS THEIR FAULT.
In that scenario the problem IS NOT with Gay soldiers who serve with diligence, dignity and integrity.
So. My advice? Heterosexual enlisted soldiers need to check themselves and get over their obsessive bigotry. THAT and only THAT is PRECISELY what is screwing up your precious "morale".
@ sperez1965
Has it dawned on you Gay soldiers are ALREADY rooming with straight soldiers and have been doing so for decades without incident???
All things being the same, if a straight soldier has a problem rooming with an out Gay soldier the problem is with HIM. The disruption to "unit cohesion" would be on the part of the straight soldier.
In that scenario the problem IS NOT with the Gay soldier.
So. My advice? Heterosexual enlisted soldiers need to check themselves and get over their obsessive bigotry. THAT and only THAT is PRECISELY what is screwing up your precious "morale".
@ sperez1965
Has it dawned on you Gay soldiers are ALREADY rooming with straight soldiers and have been doing so for decades without incident???
All things being the same, if a straight soldier has a problem rooming with an out Gay soldier the problem is with HIM. The disruption to "unit cohesion" would be on the part of the straight soldier.
In that scenario the problem IS NOT with the Gay soldier.
So. My advice? Heterosexual enlisted soldiers need to check themselves and get over their obsessive bigotry. THAT and only THAT is PRECISELY what is screwing up your precious "morale".
Key opportunity to address a very important issue in our adult community: i.e. Congress....... bullying.....double standards for youth a la adults...
Nothing better illustrates the bankruptcy of those opposing gays in the military than Mr. Sears' argument that the ban lowers the incident of rape. By that "logic" we should also ban women in the military (thus disposing of heterosexual rape), blacks (no black on white rape), and non-Christians (etc.)!
The true comparison is not just with desegregation, but with all battles against prejudice. Jews were accused of murdering Christian children, Blacks were accused of raping white women, gays (and before them women) were accused of being "slaves to their hormones" and of being unable to control themselves. All lies - because the rhetoric of prejudice never changes, just the target.
The real question is: do we want our military run on lies? The armed forces know the "threat" of gays in the military doesn't exist. Study the history of military enlistment: in times of actual war the "witch hunts" for gays suddenly drops, and well-known gay men and lesbians are allowed to serve. Why? Because their bodies are needed as "cannon fodder". So, when "convenient" all these arguments against gays are ignored.
As for America's military having a "unique role in the world" - you mean like Israel's? Every time that nation's military acts it is literally a matter of life and death for Israel as a whole. Any thing that weakens their military truly threatens their existence. So, of course, Israel has long allowed gays to serve openly without any harmful effects.
Whether the issue is military service, marriage, or even teaching in schools, the arguments against allowing gays their "inalienable rights" are contrary to fact and reason, which proves it's just a matter of blind prejudice!
@MARK GRAFF
Has is dawned on you MARK GRAFF that we heard you the first time? No need for 3 redundant rants! We all agree here on this.
SO STOP WITH THE AGENDA BAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The President and his administration should hold fast and wait till the DOD concludes its study for lifting the DADT policy. Being a gay man, I have often found myself wondering at the zealot like support that some gays give issues. Holding onto one side of the views and not accounting for all gay people or the entire effect of the cause. Being black I understand that this is not civil rights nor a movement like it, it’s a game being played out by people who want to be empowered to feel good or something. Since the gay and lesbian community has no congress for me to appoint my voice. I am my own voice and its not always in agreement with the charge of the day. Other voices must be heard good or bad. The complex issues around lifting the DADT goes far beyond it just being the right thing to do. People’s lives will be at stake and they should be afforded the correct apparatus to ensure they are able to live the American Dream. So, what if it takes 2years, it will be done right. You cannot go into this decision based on a campaign promise, as it’s the view of only one person. DADT is not affecting any gay member of the armed services as it stands. I have served with many a gay soldier and thought nothing of it. However some of those gay soldiers had a problem with me being black.
Just taking the cover of and saying its ok to be gay will solve nothing. But giving them the apparatus within the armed service to be treated right and have a means to be heard when there are issues is the right thing to do. Those leading this charge need to think about that. .
The President and his administration should hold fast and wait till the DOD concludes its study for lifting the DADT policy. Being a gay man, I have often found myself wondering at the zealot like support that some gays give issues. Holding onto one side of the views and not accounting for all gay people or the entire effect of the cause. Being black I understand that this is not civil rights nor a movement like it, it’s a game being played out by people who want to be empowered to feel good or something. Since the gay and lesbian community has no congress for me to appoint my voice. I am my own voice and its not always in agreement with the charge of the day. Other voices must be heard good or bad. The complex issues around lifting the DADT goes far beyond it just being the right thing to do. People’s lives will be at stake and they should be afforded the correct apparatus to ensure they are able to live the American Dream. So, what if it takes 2years, it will be done right. You cannot go into this decision based on a campaign promise, as it’s the view of only one person. DADT is not affecting any gay member of the armed services as it stands. I have served with many a gay soldier and thought nothing of it. However some of those gay soldiers had a problem with me being black.
Just taking the cover of and saying its ok to be gay will solve nothing. But giving them the apparatus within the armed service to be treated right and have a means to be heard when there are issues is the right thing to do. Those leading this charge need to think about that. .
Ugh, I hate not getting to hear the show until well after it's over... all I can do is yell at my radio.
I'm glad others have made points about sexual assault by straight males on straight women. I'm also glad people have been pointing out that gay folks have been serving, and showering, for decades (centuries?) in the US military.
I agree with one commenter that the panel seemed to lack sufficient credentials to be speaking on the subject, and I find the "readiness" argument to be beyond laughable. Mr Perez (who seemed to be making things up as he went) states the obvious when he says that no other military has the same responsibilities worldwide, but we send SOLDIERS to intervene (and if they can currently live without openly expressing themselves, I'm pretty sure they're well trained enough that they wouldn't "flaunt" their sexuality in a country with an extreme religious culture).
Lastly, if DADT is good for the (gay) goose, it should be good for the (straight) gander. If the military wants to keep it in place, then let it extend to ALL soldiers. If you're married, don't talk about it. If you go on a date, you better not mention it. Having a child? Hush. And we better not continue building "family" housing on military bases. These people are soldiers, not family members (because family detracts from readiness).
The logic would be the same. Everyone knows there are gays in the military, but soldiers aren't supposed to know who... so you could be telling a gay soldier all about your wife, which MIGHT make them uncomfortable. You MIGHT tell a lesbian about your hookup with that cute townie from the city near the base, which MIGHT make them think less of you, which would hurt morale.
And finally (at more of a societal level), how can we fight for freedom around the world when we can't even work through our discrimination (rooted in the most base stereotypes) here at home?
Don’t ask, don’t tell was a political, not a functional discussion in place during the Clinton Administration. The Federal Government has lost millions of dollars by way of manpower in training, administrative discharges, and morale since Clinton.
It was explained to me that heterosexuality and homosexuality each are defined by one’s sexual appetite. I don’t recall being told to like girls, I just do. My simple mind allows that same reference to anyone.
Historically this country has separated the sexes in the way of berthing. I would have to say the separation is required due to the sexual appetite of men and women. I was in the service during the 70’s 80’s and early 90’s where I suffered the successful attempt to fully integrate women into the U.S. Coast Guard. I saw the money that was spent, and male service member’s seniority put aside for female berthing. Subsequent to the congress creating the volunteer military a shortage of desirable manpower was evident and opening up opportunities to women was the functionally smart move. Some politicians made hay with it, but the call was good for the country and our military. Even I could see it, while I was suffering the change. Are we going to spend the money to further divide the berthing or are going to put aside the appetite issues or shall we have Rebecca and Robert share the same berthing. It probably still a manpower pain in the butt to keep the women berthing areas filled today on ships. I don’t think you will find a Flag Officer that will ready trade a major berthing area project for training, guns, morale of the crew, or operational readiness.
These folks are citizens and family. But being family does not give them or anyone rights as they wish to self-describe them. I say let the hearings precede in a logical, & functional order. At the end of the hearings the President is going to have to employ more back bone than intellect to his tour of duty.
Greetings
Let me begin this post stating that I have no legal or constitutional training. I am however well educated, multilingual, outspoken and perhaps even capable of logical though.
The word activist judge appears to enrage and frighten people, particularly with respect to the topic of don't ask don't tell. WHY?
When an "activist" judge states that don't ask don't tell is interfering with my constitutional right to free speech and self expression, may I ask who really is interfering?
Is the policy of don't ask don't tell under its current system not preventing thousands of civil service members from expressing themselves?! Yet everyone jumps at the judge for stating this! WHY? Should we not be enraged over the idea that our ultimate legislative body was capable of passing a law interfering with my right of self expression? Should we not be enraged that people born gay are not able to live the way they were born? We are willing to allow members of the West Barrow Baptist Church to praise the death of military combatants in the name of Christ, we are willing to accommodate and protect the most offense and vile hate speech, but refuse to allow non heterosexual individuals to enter a voluntary military force on account that they were born gay?
Can someone please tell me why everyone is enraged by the action of one judge who simply stated that don't ask don't tell is unconstitutional.
@ BIFF STUXNET
I did not purposely submit "3 redundant rants".
The fact that my comment posted 3 times was a submission error made by this website.
You couldn't stop to think about this before reflexively assigning blame and labeling me an "agenda baiter"?
Really?