RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Closet case



Toolbox

Published: July 1, 2009

Already during the Obama administration 265 gay service personnel have been drummed out of the military because of the nation's don't-ask-don't-tell policy. Meanwhile, President Obama met with a gathering of gay men and lesbians on Monday urging them to exercise patience as they wait for him to overturn the policy.

Obama has pledged to end don't-ask-don't tell, which allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military if they keep their sexual orientation a secret. Once they are out, they are out.

Obama understands the history of the word patience as it relates to civil rights. Martin Luther King memorably addressed those who counseled blacks to exercise patience when he said blacks had been urged to be patient for generations; they would no longer wait for their rights.

"It's not for me to tell you to be patient any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half-century ago," he told his audience on Monday.

He was hoping for a little more patience, nevertheless. He noted that he had been in office for only six months, and he suggested that gay Americans would be pleased with him by the time he was finished.

Obama campaigned on a promise to end don't-ask-don't-tell and also to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. But in his remarks on Monday he said he would pursue these goals by working through Congress and the Pentagon.

The occasion of the gathering was the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York City, which are seen as the spark that ignited the gay rights movement in America. Fred Sargeant, a retired police lieutenant who lives in Shrewsbury, was an activist who leafleted during the Stonewall protests, and he wrote recently in The New York Times that "older gays saw the path to equality as going through the power structure. We saw it as going around the power structure." Their purpose was to draw attention to the issue of gay rights in a way that had never happened before.

On Monday gay Americans were at the heart of the power structure — the White House. The event was evidence of the long journey the gay rights movement has traveled since Stonewall. Obama's demurral on the issue of don't-ask-don't-tell was further evidence of the difficulty of the journey.

Obama argued that he wanted to pursue the issue in a way that would eventually gain the support of the Pentagon and the Congress. "As commander in chief, I do have a responsibility to see that this change is administered in a practical way and a way that takes over the long term."

As one gay activist said, "This will buy him some time, but he'll have to deliver."

Gradually, the culture of the military will catch up to the larger culture. The last few decades have awakened Americans to the fact that gay and lesbian co-workers are likely to be in the next office cubicle — or the next foxhole. They are likely to be present in one's family — a brother, a cousin, a daughter, an in-law. As the struggle for gay marriage has occurred in numerous states across the country, Americans have learned to accept the reality of gay life. Militaries in Israel, Great Britain, and Denmark, among others, allow gays and lesbians to serve openly with no adverse effects.

Among the valuable service personnel who have been driven out of the military have been numerous Arabic translators. It is likely that lives have been lost in Iraq for want of a sufficient number of translators.

The history of the gay rights movement has shown that there are times for winning over legislators and the public in an evolutionary way. That happened in Vermont with civil unions. And there are times for revolutionary strokes. Obama may well find, when he finally abolishes don't-ask-don't tell, that his action is less revolutionary than he fears.








READER COMMENTS


Matt asked:

I suspect that uniformity and conformity are important parts of combat effectiveness. Shall we allow soldiers who are devoute Muslims and Orthodox Jews to openly excerise their freedom of religion in the military by wearing traditional dress while serving with each other?

das writes:

not quite the same is it Matt? No one including you is suggesting that open displays of sex by persons gay or straight in the military are at issue.

And the military DOES allow discreet but sometimes visible religious symbols to be worm by military personnel while in service.
-- Posted by David Searles on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 8:33 am EST

report this comment



The point that the herald was trying to make with the drumming out image was what i was referring to. It was an exagerated image intended to sway the reader. Individuals who violate the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy are not given a dishonorable or even a bad conduct discharge. I believe that unless there are other charges it is an honorable discharge.

It is not the generals and certainly not the politicians and social scientist who have never been in uniform or in a combat situation who have to deal with any elimination of that policy. It is the Cpls. and the Sgts who are squad and platoon leaders and half to deal with the members of their units 24/7. They do not go home at 5 pm and leave the propblems of the office in the office. If they are good NCO's they have to be concerned with the lives of their unit members at all times. This in addition to building a cohesive, efficient combat team. They do not need additional issues getting in the way of making their team effective. Inefficient, inefective or non-cohesive teams get people killed.

The military is not a college campus where stupid decisions and social experiments that don't work can be ignored. It's a real shame that so many of our civilian leaders who have never served in the military themselves but see themselves quallified to make these decisions based on advise by social scientists and lawyers who also have never served.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, 11:04 am EST

report this comment



Northstar, first a linguistic comment: while "drum out" may have originally had the meaning you describe, it is used metaphorically. I found citations to people being drummed out as bank president.

But while you may agree with the current policy, your claim that it is "for the good order and discipline of the service" is just an empty claim. As Nathaniel Frank discovered when he interviewed the generals who came up with the policy, the policy itself was based on prejudice, and they just made up an excuse for it. There was no research. In fact, they ignored research and relied on their own bias. They made up the "unit cohesion" reason out of thin air.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/03/dont-ask-dont-t.html

You can repeat it all you want, but there is no empirical support for the ban. In fact, as Obama said, it works against our national security.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 10:30 am EST

report this comment



Actually, valuable LGBT servicepeople ARE being drummed out of the service for no reason other than being "outed," sometimes by former romantic partners angry about a breakup. I've seen no evidence that keeping LGBT folks closeted and preventing them from enjoying relationships is more effective for military readiness. If anything, the opposite seems to be the case. The "chaos" is a spectre that fearful people raise to continue the discrimination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/washington/23pentagon.html

Countries that allow gay soldiers to serve openly:
Argentina
Australia
Bermuda
Canada
Germany
Israel
Italy
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Philippines
Romania
The United Kingdom
Switzerland
Uruguay
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Jul 2, 2009, 9:16 am EST

report this comment



Interesting post Northstar62. I agree that the fighting readiness and capacity of our forces should take precedence over the right of homosexuals to openly express their sexuality while serving in the military. I would defer to those who have spent their lives studying, preparing for, and fighting wars to determine whether or not openly homosexual soldiers fighting alongside straight ones impairs our military's fighting readiness, morale, commradere, etc or not. The military does not exist to fulfill the individual career aspirations of its soldiers, or to enrich soldier satisfaction with their chosen vocation; it exists to achieve victory in war.

Further, I suspect that uniformity and conformity are important parts of combat effectiveness. Shall we allow soldiers who are devoute Muslims and Orthodox Jews to openly excerise their freedom of religion in the military by wearing traditional dress while serving with each other? Shall we allow pascifists to serve openly and exercise their freedom of speech regarding the wisdom of war? Shall we impose the democratic right of suffrage upon the military such that all soldiers have an equal say in all matters?
-- Posted by Matt Anderson on Wed, Jul 1, 2009, 9:21 am EST

report this comment



Economic issues matter, and marriage is an economic issue. Studies show that married people are on average slightly wealthier (pay more taxes) and healthier (cost less) than their single counterparts and this is true for gay people as well. Therefore, it is in the best economic interests of the states to grant marriage equality. Furthermore, marriage is a legal contract and gay people deserve these contract rights.
-- Posted by Tom Miller on Wed, Jul 1, 2009, 8:54 am EST

report this comment



The first line of your editorial indicates how little you inow about the military. No gay service personnel have been drummed out of the military unless they have committed a much more serious crime as well and probably not even then.

"Drumming out" was generally reserved for individuals who had been given a 'dishonorable discharge' for a serious violation of the UCMJ. The individuals military unit was drawn up in formation. The individual was brought to the front of the formation and presented to the commanding officer who read the charges, the verdict of the court and the penalty. The idividual was then given about face and marched past his unit. As he passed to the beat of a drum the formation was given the command about face so that they turned their back on him.

I took part in only one 'drumming out' (we didn't have the drums). A convicted rapist. He was escorted to the road where he was taken into custady by the MP's and taken to the main gate and handed over to sheriff's deputies. It was pretty traumatic and I'm sure that it was even more so for the convicted individual although they probably deserved it. I think that the military has eliminated the practice.

Individuals who violate the "don't ask, don't tell" policy are aware of the policy before they are sworn into the military. I don't know whether they recieve an honorable or general discharge but they certainly are not 'drummed out'.

Personnally I agree with the current policy for the good order and disciplne of the service. Having never served a day in harms way I can understand that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would disagree with it. It was fortunate that Clinton was bright enough to accept the counsel of the joint chiefs and the folks who knew what the military culture was about.

I believe that gay individuals are as patriotic and can be as much a warrior as anyone else, however I also believe that to abandon the policy would lead to chaos and undermine the morale and discipline in small units.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Wed, Jul 1, 2009, 7:42 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout