To Serve Or Not To Serve
The policy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has been brought to the forefront again by President Obama, most recently in his State of the Union Address. Here on ThreeConservativeBros, we have debated the issue at length, often times coming up with more questions than proposed solutions to the problem. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the long standing policy’s dissolution is not my aim here, it’s to let people know that socials issues are usually complex, emotional and rarely seem to have a clear or fair answer. I’ve tried to make it a point in my dealings with socially complex, hot button issues like DADT, to take a moderate tone, search for the facts, and identify the tactics employed by all sides of the argument. We must approach these types of issues with an aim towards clarity, searching for common levels of agreement rather than surface level emoting or stubborn xenophobia.
That being said I read a great article the other day from WSJ that rationally breaks down the issue of DADT. Please take a look, it’s short and concise. The only thing I can think of that Stephens leaves out is the potential for cost increases due to inherent gender-like differences between gays and their counterparts. Similar accommodations will undoubtedly have to be taken between gay men and straight men as they are for men and women. Again in my personal opinion, this issue leaves me with more questions than answers, but Stephen’s column is definitely worth a read and I would love to hear any of your thoughts on the matter.
Thanks
3conservativebros
MacGregor
Johnny M
Timmy K
I didn’t follow the link and read, but I am interested in what you think about repealing it or not? Admiral Mullen says he’s served with gays for 30 years. I’m quite sure we’ve never provided any kind of separate of quarters during that time?
Hello again Moe,
A friend of mine in law school recently told me that DADT would not hold up to constitutional analysis. Ive been told that sexual orientation is innate and fixed. Ive been told gender is of no consequence. Public opinion polls say most Americans want it repealed.
But, Gender issues are never addressed in this discussion. If allowed to serve openly and in our litigator laiden society, you could not force a straight man to do anything with a gay man that you wouldnt allow with women. Its a fair question that doesnt get answered. It may also not even be a big deal, just want it answered. Im taking this issue looking more at costs and consequences, not on simple fairness.
Ive told many people before, if our military chooses to deny redheads or left handers and has a remotely logical argument for it, im okay with it. They are not simply employees to me and operate under separate rules. I would also hate to see the media backlash if something happened to a gay person in the military god forbid.
My opinion. Yes its unfair, yes its outdated in our society today. Yes we have decent case studies to gauge its effects. But do we have all questions answered? No. I say dont let the activists and liberal columnists(or evangelicals for that matter), or even public opinion polls decide this one. Leave it up to a consensus of our military leaders, analyze if and what consequences its repeal will have, and then decide. Obviously our military is more important than Israel’s or Canada’s so i am not going to allow Stage One thinkers dominate this discussion. I was just on another blog discussing this and was told any reason i have possibly being against its repeal is based 100% on bigotry. I tend to think there are good arguments both for and against its repeal.
My hope is that if its repealed it wont matter as military folks will be more disciplined than most. Will that happen? Not sure. So im agnostic and dont really think i have a seat at this table.
My cohort Timmy posted on this subject back in October, and we had a good back and forth with two gentlemen who each have 20+ years of service, one conservative, one liberal, and they are both for its repeal, so im openminded as well.
Well, I spent 18 yrs in the service with a combat tour in Panama and Iraq.
I can say that there is not one single compelling reason to keep gays out of the military. There are gays there now and many of us know who they are and it isn’t an issue. There are documented cases of it in our history as far back as the civil war and probably before.
Listen, anyone who is going to have my back or drag me wounded off the battlefield has my respect; I don’t care who or what they are.
Nice name,
Nobody here thinks Gays should be kept out of the military. The question is should they be allowed to serve while openly proclaiming their sexual orientation. I think we can all agree that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the job of being a soldier.
Does that common ground validate those who are against repealing it? Like Mac said, there are logistical reasons that the military has to consider when allowing anyone to serve. I think those complications out weight the “right to serve openly”.
Thanks for the comment. You point of view is one that im hearing quite often, and i to agree that sexual orientation plays no role in ones ability to get a job done.
I know there are plenty of gays in the military now, and just assumed that most were like you and knew but didnt care, as i wouldnt either.
I guess time will tell where the policy goes and how or when its repealed, assuming it is. I hope you are right and it will have no effect at all. But then again i believe our Military rightly survives on a set of rules quite different from us civilians. Curious to see how this plays out, i just hope in the end rational minds prevail.
[our Military rightly survives on a set of rules quite different from us civilians]
I think that’s exactly why it will work – because the military is a hierarchy and soldiers follow orders.
That’s why the military was able to be the first major institution in this country to integrate the races. They made it the rule, they issued orders and it was done. An amazing thing actually.
I am very close to one gay couple, have been for 40 years. We’re family really. Both of them served, one in ‘Nam. (Both use the VA these days!)
And even when they were in the service, most of their fellows knew they were gay. Steve is still very close to a guy from his platoon in Nam, who is now a grandfather. But they were soldiers together and that matters much more than their sexual orientation – to them at least.
I hope Mac you end up being fully accepting of repeal.
You know I am for the repeal and dont see any evidence that leads me to believe it will have any reprecussions on our military. Although I share your fear that if one gay solider gets abused or hazed whether its because of their sexual orientation or not – the media circus will be overwhelming. Im not saying the abuser shouldnt be punished but I dont like the sight of one incident getting so much publicity that it can deflate the good of our armed forces.
Interested in your thoughts since Cheney came out this weekend for its full repeal? Isnt it surprising that Cheney is for the repeal and McCain is not?
Cheney has a gay daughter with a partner and I’m sure that has something to do with it. McCain, I don’t understand. A few years ago he said very clearly that when the top brass said it was time to get rid of DADT, he would be right there with them. But when the chairman of the Joiint Chiefs and the Sec Def appear before congress and say, okay it’s time to let this one go . . . McCain gets all worked up and says “not so fast there!”
I figured that life experience has a lot to do with Cheney’s opinion too. Ive thought for awhile he avoids talking about his family less out of embarrassment and more because his love of his daughter doesnt fall in line with the religious base of the party. Ive heard it described vice versa, which is the only reason I mention it. Although some would disagree that Cheney feels no emotions – naturally his paternal insticts shape his opinion.
I dont understand McCain’s opinion unless its him supporting what he hears from the upper military brass. Although you mention who has said its time to repeal it, I think the greater degree of generals have the opposite opinion. No stat for that, just my impression. I wonder what McCain’s “Highly advanced conservative daughter” thinks of her daddy’s opinion?
McCain’s daughter has already spoken out in favor of repeal. But she’s about celebrity, not national issues.
As for whatever McCain is hearing from ‘other generals’, it hardly gets any higher brass than the chair and the Sec Def. That’s the very top. So why aren’t they not good enough for him? I think he’s just pandering because he’s running again and has JD Hayworth challenging him from the right. The guy is in his 70’s and might want to consider retirement.
I agree with your opinion about McCain.
I do think Mullen’s testimony is very important and just about persuades me. The only part that leaves me to wonder is that both Gates and Mullen stressed that it was their opinion alone and not that of their peers. Although the Sec Def is the very top, he probably is the best to base this decision on in my opinion.
I would wholeheartedly agree with the repeal if they could say there is a consensus among leaders. Right?
I’m sure there is still some resistance among the senior officer corps (perhaps that’s why Mullen was so cagey). But they’re also the oldest people in the services. Mid level officers and down are younger and poll after poll among their generation shows that it’s just not an issue for them. Certainly the American people are pretty clear that it’s no longer an issue for them.
I really think the racial integration of the military by Harry Truman is the model.
Moe thats where you lose me. I recoil as do MANY at the flippant race is like sexual orientation argument.
My opinion on the policy doesnt matter so much, im just searching for moral clarity and levels of agreement amongst us, i have no skin in the game. Sec Gates being a proponent is strong, but i would rather have it be a consensus amongst many of the leaders. AND, if Gates wont answer the question of whether or not he believes KSM or other terrorists should be tried in civilian court, he doesnt deserve an opinion on this issue.
Why do you hope that I eventually am fully accepting of the repeal? My personal opinion, however moderate or questioning has no basis in the oft liberally labeled bigotry. Comments like that (although i know you didnt mean it with any malice whatsoever), are whats hurting certain social agendas, traditional mindsets when questioned react negatively. Especially when the majority of them are well intentioned folks on both sides.
[Why do you hope that I eventually am fully accepting of the repeal? My personal opinion . . .]
Well, your’re right of course. Your post was not about your own opinion. I did make assumptions. One of my New Years resolutions was to read things twice! I think I’m falling off the wagon already.
But as for the integration comparison, I disagree with you. I think it’s an exact model. At the time, there was plenty of talk about ‘well, you can’t expect these men to shower with the niggers’ and ‘there will need to be separate barracks’. I was there Mac. I remember it. It went on for a decade, but each year the voices against got fewer and fewer.
Moe,
Definitely appreciate your life experiences as i cannot speak to that. But……..There is no difference between the races, let alone one that is morally or religiously based that creates or exacerbates racism.
There ARE clear and profound differences between gender, as well as with sexual orientation. There are also clear moral differences, many religiously based to harbor disdain towards non traditional sexual lifestyles. No religious or societal entity has logically reasoned that sexual orientation is as fixed(or non fixed) as race. So you are saying that every religion and/or society throughout all of time has been immoral in its lack of acceptance of gays and of its comparison to race. (whether they be valid or wrong is not for this argument, sorry for the digression)
I get your point though and i understand the comparison, i just dont buy it, and neither does the majority of the country.
The improvement in race relations in this country since I grew up is simply stunning. So much so that younger people (I’m guessing you’re quite a bit younger) really have no idea of how deeply ugly it was. Deeply deeply ugly and premised on the belief that blacks ‘weren’t as human as whites and didn’t have the same rights’. Not everyone believed this of course. It was largely regional, but it wasn’t only in the South
I’m quite proud of my generation; we were a big part of that change.
[So you are saying that every religion and/or society throughout all of time has been immoral in its lack of acceptance of gays]
I’m not saying that at all. I do understand the moral dimension is a factor for many people. And a hurdle for them as well. And I certainly don’t condemn earlier generations or societies for their failings. Lord knows, they all had them, as do we.
We just muddle on, day by day, trying to get better at being fully accepting of each other.
Right but where does your acceptance end? If this taboo, formerly considered morally deplorable should be removed of all stigmas rightly or wrongly assigned to it, whats next? Most arent ready for that leap, or to be told that their values are evil or hateful.. Thats why the gay marriage agenda isnt winning.
You are right, i cant even imagine racial hatred that existed back then, all i know is what ive experienced and what ive read or heard of. However bad and ignorant those folks may have been in the past, it still doesnt answer the question of the profound differences between race and gender (or sexual orientation) and why you think all the rest throughout all of time were so misguided and immoral in their views against homosexuality.
Guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one for now. Im thinking that we agree on this topic more than you think though.
Mac
Just came across this article about Mullen and troops
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/85439.html
I found this especially interesting, because it tracks with what I was saying about generations:
(He held a few town halls with troops in Jordan)
“none of the two dozen or so men or women who met with Mullen at Marine House in the Jordanian capital Tuesday had any questions on the 17-year-old policy that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military . . ”
“After Tuesday’s question-and-answer session, Mullen told McClatchy that although he’s held three town hall sessions with troops since his testimony, not a single service member has asked him about the issue”
Goes on to say that the soldiers, men and women, were pretty much ‘indifferent’ about the issue. In other words, for them, it was not an issue.
Anyway, interesting . . .