Unanswered Questions About Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
In the President’s State of the Union, just like he did as a candidate and on multiple occasions during his first year as President, Obama promised to work towards ending the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. The Obama Administration has said it does not have the power to end DADT through executive order and that the only constitutional way to repeal the policy is through Congress. I don’t think this is even going to be a priority for the administration and Congress, with the obvious focus being on jobs, healthcare, and of course the 2010 election which are now only about nine months away. However, I am bothered by the way politicians and media discuss DADT, just like I am bothered by the shallow way that most issues involving the military are discussed. It is implied that all that needs to happen with DADT is that Congress and the President need to wave a magic wand and gays can serve openly the next day without a hitch. I’m pretty sure that most readers of this blog and anybody who has served in the military knows that this is not the case. There are serious policy, operational, logistical, and of course fiscal issues that the repeal of DADT poses to our military, which is in the middle of a very kinetic fight in Afghanistan and massive drawdown in Iraq.
Lets go over some of the questions that nobody in the Obama administration or Congress has addressed in regards to repealing DADT:
1. Will there be seperate barracks, berthing, and living quarters for homosexuals?
With the Army and Marine Corps having expanded over the past three years and with the Navy changing its policies on living on ship while in port, there is a severe shortage of housing for both single and married military personnel. Not to mention that on naval vessels there is already limited berthing spaces for sailors/Marines. Mandating that homosexuals have their own living quarters (like some colleges and universities do) will require new construction of barracks and a complete rearrangement and reconfiguring of hundreds of naval vessels. On the other hand, allowing homosexuals to live with heterosexuals, will cause a whole different set of headaches for military commanders.
2. Will homosexuals be allowed to serve in combat arms units?
Women are forbidden by Congress to serve in combat arms units (infantry, arty, tanks, etc.). Some of the same issues surrounding women serving in combat units are present in the debate over gays serving openly in these same units.
3. Will people discharged under DADT be allowed to reenlist/recommission in the military if the policy is repealed?
I don’t know how many people who were discharged under DADT would want to reenter the military, but there are even more questions that need to be answered if they are allowed to reenter. Will they retain their same rank/billet regardless how long they have been out? Will they get retroactive promotions?
4. If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, will the military recognize and award benefits to gay marriages or civil unions?
5. Will each service be allowed to craft its own policies regarding homosexuals?
Each service has its own operational needs and missions. Will the DoD have an across the board policy or like with women will each service be given some degree of freedom to craft its own policies?
And finally…
6. How much money is repealing DADT going to cost?
Everytime the military changes a policy, it costs money. A major policy change like this one is going to cost that Defense Department a lot of money to implement and the amount depends a lot on the answers to the questions that I have posed. Thats money that can be spent on things like body armor, new vehicles, new guns, or any number of things that are important to an effective military.
If anybody has any links to the Obama administration addressing these issues in writing or on video, I would greatly appreciate it if you provided the links in the comment sections.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Media, Military issues, Politics
I find the lifestyle choice of Christianity offensive. I prefer DADT to apply to religion.
SPC Jack Klompus,
Well, thank you for your compliment about my blog — that you like what I have to say and that you think we are on the same page on a lot of issues.
But you do realize that I am a Christian, right..? I mean, you find Christianity offensive and all..Well, actually, I find it a little offensive myself sometimes – not Christianity, but Churchianity. Anyway, I have tons of atheist friends and don’t go to church due to being a non-conformist, though I do still identify with Christianity.
My next post on my blog will be pictures and video from son-in-law’s winging these past two days – he got his gold Naval Aviator wings today (Friday that is). He will be flying the Seahawk. It has been very meaningful; I am overwhelmed…
I guess I was just trying to substitute religion as something that is “chosen” in place of sexuality which I do not believe is a choice, and craft a similar point of view to what I frequently hear from people who object to homosexuality on religious grounds. I believe the Christian philosophy is a wonderful set of beliefs that are often a guide and framework for many good people who live good, ethical lives. And that’s fine at that. I don’t know why some Christians think that their faith gives them license to make patronizing comments about how other people choose to live their lives, especially with regard to very personal, intimate aspects of their lives. It’s a shame what a number of its followers have done to distort it as is often the case with any belief system.
My point of view is that I don’t particularly wish to hear about the sex lives or the religious lives of my fellow soldiers. However, if one soldier wants to tell me about his male life partner and how they met, to me that’s as personal but overall as innocuous as another one discussing their church. Should either one or both be turned in and discharged from the military? I don’t think that either one should, but I’d prefer a “DADT” on both topics.
Congratulations to your son-in-law. That’s a fantastic accomplishment for him.
I agree that religion is much more of a choice than sexuality is.
#51: you assume I am.
Not interesting in debating the choice/nature aspect.
As a leader what are the larger 2nd and 3rd order effects of a reversal of policy, on all of DoD.
Would MAJ Hasan have been eligible not to treat a Soldier b/c of the Soldier’s sexual orientation? Islam is explicit about homosexuality.
Would DoD demand he do so? Doubtful in today’s PC climate.
Last post from me on this.
I would be more inclined to believe that America wanted to see this happen if the State Constitutional Amendments defining marriage (DOMA’s) had been defeated.
They were not. It’s clearly not the will of the people of our country.
Hey Deb, that “certain” computer that gets you moderated? You might want to check, maybe Webb is sneaking in during the o-dark hours and using it without your knowledge? JK.
And anon, good point. And, how would the repeal and the accomodations that would have to be made play out in those states that don’t grant special rights to the LGBT brigade?
UpNorth…uh, no. Where that computer is located, Webb would not be able to sneak in. Actually, I don’t know what the deal is but I’m thinking it might be a good idea for me to not post to TAH from there anymore..
And what about the free speech rights of white supremacists, black power advocates (oh wait, that is almost tolerated because nobody wants to be hit with an EO complaint), gang-bangers, communists, adulterers, male chauvinistic pigs (also known as men), muslim terrorists, KKK members, right wing milita recruiters, etc, etc, etc. Are these people in our ranks? Yes, of course they are. But they remain hidden because they know that their beliefs are not held by the majority of servicemembers. When will they get to be free of the PC shackles? They (hopefully) will never be able to come out of the closet as their beliefs are a detriment to good order and discipline. There are plenty of these servicemembers with these beliefs soldiering on in silence, burdened by the “don’t say anything” intolerance of the current administration. When will the “One” set them free? DADT falls under the myriad of other restrictions place on rights of free speech/association of servicemembers. We are not a reflection of society. Look at the demographics of the US Military. http://cs.mhf.dod.mil/content/dav/mhf/QOL-Library/Project%20Documents/MilitaryHOMEFRONT/Reports/2007%20Demographics.pdf How many servicemembers hail from the Northeast? How many come from the South? Is every religion/ethnic group/culture equally represented in the military? We actively discriminate. We do not have to abide by the Americans with Disabilities laws. We can kick people out who are fat, drink too much, use drugs, get pregnant, do petty crimes, etc. There is no such thing as “off duty” while one is on active duty. Your conduct when you remove your uniform can get you kicked out. We are selective on who we allow to serve in the military. We have a few standards/practices that we ask prospective recruits and serving members to live by if they so choose to serve. It is inappropriate for me to hang a calender that has weapons pictured. Granted, those weapons are usually held by a scantily clad female model, but none the less, I can’t use that calender at work as it might “offend” somebody and create a hostile work environment. Much like a peer who proselytizes or hits on his/her co-workers,… Read more »
Matt,
You hit square in the black. As I have commented here and elsewhere, the problems that the removal of DADT will cause will be a direct result of the militant branch of the LGBT lifestyle. Those folks are always “in your face” and will be looking to enlist solely for the purpose of punishing those who disagree with them, and also looking for the chance to file a complaint and win the “government lawsuit lottery”.
The removal of DADT has absolutely nothing to do with gays serving in the military. It has everything to do with furthering an agenda by a small and vitriolic portion of society.
Those are very good points, Matt, and applicable to many situations.
Very well said, Matt. And Tim, your last point is their whole agenda….
Deb, just trying to be facetious back in #58.
Yeah, I know. 🙂
a rainbow flag is evidence of sexual proclivities but your wedding ring, family pictures and wife on your arm at the yearly ball aren’t?
most gay people don’t have rainbow flags unless they just came out. I know it is hard to imagine since you have never had to hide your sexuality.
anyway, the logistical conversation early on was really great.
it kinda went down hill when people made comments like “being gay is a choice” and then asked for scientific proof of economic effects in the very next sentence.
the ban will eventually be lifted and people who don’t like gay people will have to act the same way that racist and sexist people do- keep their mouths shut and do the job they are paid to do.
I think, due to the fact that gays are already in showers and barracks, it will be easier and cheaper to just keep things as they are and enforce the already in place sexual assault and harassment regs. that seems to be working now.
no one however deserves to be harassed or assaulted. the current policy hurts reporting rates. many men are assaulted already, being able to make reports without fear of a dadt investigation against the victim will help get undesireable elements out. (straight men assault men too)
same for the infantry, gay men are already there. the only thing that changes is that men around them will know.
and just to echo, being gay is as much of a choice as being straight is.
and to clear any confusion up, lifting dadt is about putting sexuality in your face just as much as straight people put their sexuality in peoples faces. I think the rainbows will die down when gay people aren’t forced to hide their partners. I don’t want to tell you what I do in bed, I just belive it isn’t right to have to pretend they don’t exist.
Jen,
Anytime you want to post links to the scientific studies that prove Homosexuality is a birth defect, feel free to do so. Anytime you want to post links to scientific studies that prove homosexuality is ANYTHING other than an acquired lifestyle, a choice, please do so.
Albert Einstein College of Medicine conducted a study of 10,000 homosexuals. In EVERY instance, there was no biological cause for their homosexuality. In EVERY instance it was shown that homosexuality was an acquired lifestyle.
Just because you or anyone else in the LGBT community WANT there to be a biological basis for homosexuality doesn’t make it fact. Belief and truth are not the same. Fact comes from scientific investigation, and demonstrable proof, with results of experiments being able to be repeated under the same conditions.
Despite years of searching, there is NO proof that homosexuality is anything but an acquired lifestyle. A choice. There exists NO proof that anyone is born a homosexual.
AwTim,
so how does your assertion that it is a choice explain your heterosexuality, or said differently, you could choose to have sex with men and would enjoy it, but just don’t? you feel no repulsion towards oral and anal sex with other men? if not everyone can choose it, how is it a choice? (not to mention religion is a choice and it is protected)
do you have any studies that show heterosexuality is not a choice? if both are “choices”, or at least unexplainable in terms of our limited understanding of human sexuality, we are back to square one.and if heterosexuality is a choice why discriminate against other choices? either way how could one sexuality be a choice and the other not be?
Jen, maybe you could try to explain the points that Tim brought up, instead of trying to get around those points? Is homosexuality an acquired lifestyle or not?
So, if the study shows that there is no biological cause to explain the deviation from heterosexuality, how do you explain it? And the the dodge of “do you have any studies that show heterosexuality is not a choice?” is just that, a dodge. Put another way, homosexuals don’t reproduce naturally, they recruit. Man-man or woman-woman, they can’t reproduce.
UpNorth,
I guess if you think of terms in black and white then you might feel it is a dodge.
It is like you are saying gay people choose to be gay but only gay people can choose that. It doesn’t make sense.
In order to claim homosexuality is scientifically a choice, I’d like to see scientific evidence of what heterosexuality is. It is hard to make judgments if you don’t have anything to compare it, or do you disagree?
It means nothing to say:
“Albert Einstein College of Medicine conducted a study of 10,000 homosexuals. In EVERY instance, there was no biological cause for their homosexuality. In EVERY instance it was shown that homosexuality was an acquired lifestyle.”
if the same results would be aquired from a similar study of heterosexuals that showed no biological cause and only acquired lifestyle.
If being gay is a choice, wouldn’t it be logical to say heterosexuality is a choice? I’d say it is a doge to claim being gay is a choice but not explain how it is you seriously contemplated being gay, could enjoy sex with the same gender and just choose not to.
I don’t imagine you sat and chose women, it seems more likely you just knew because you had specific attractions. But maybe you can prove me wrong by saying you really were attracted to men and women but in the end choose women.
I think overall science has proven very little in regards to sexuality.
What we have legally is a history of discrimination against certain categories (for example: religion and race) and subsequent protection of those. From the two examples I just provided we have one that is choice and one that is biological. It doesn’t seem that choice or biology was the reason they became protected but the discrimination against them.
and before TSO blows a ConLaw gasket I know that is a simplified version and that immutability is a concern, all I am saying is that in regards to religion that isn’t the case, and with both examples the discrimination triggered review.
[…] Unanswered Questions About Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell […]