On Dec. 21, 1993 a law was signed into place that ended the absolute ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces. Under this new law, known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” homosexuals are permitted to serve alongside their compatriots, just as long as they follow two key rules: They may not tell anyone they are homosexual, and they may not engage in homosexual acts, or they will face a discharge from the U.S. armed forces.
On Dec. 22, 2010, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed, allowing homosexual individuals to serve in the armed forces openly for the first time in history.
And it’s about time, too.
The rationale behind “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has always been unsound. The text of the law states: “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” In other words, armed forces units cannot function with homosexual personnel because their presence would lower morale, result in lax discipline and dissolve the bonds of fellowship between the members of the units. However, there is no evidence that this is the case.
The law also points out that service in the United States armed forces is not a right; it is a privilege, and the U.S. government alone determines who may serve. It elaborates on this, stating that success in combat is only possible when the individuals of a unit are bound by trust in one another, and the unit itself is greater than the sum of its members. What the text insinuates, but does not explicitly state, is that heterosexual soldiers cannot form these “bonds of trust” with homosexuals. And the coup de gras: The United States had never allowed openly gay individuals to serve in the armed forces; why start now?
Obviously, the law was built upon shaky foundations, but it passed nonetheless. Seventeen years and a day later, more than 13,000 soldiers willing to defend their country have been discharged from the armed forces on the sheer basis of their sexual orientation. Among these individuals are, at last count, 68 translators and linguists proficient in Arabic and Farsi, languages for which translators are desperately needed at present. Evidently, the need for translators is not as important as the need to follow “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Public support of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has fallen over the years, and according to a survey performed in December of 2010 by the Washington Post, eight in 10 Americans feel that homosexuals should be permitted to serve openly in the armed forces. Interestingly enough, the survey found this belief was consistent across political and ideological lines, with liberals, conservatives, religious, and non-religious individuals in agreement that the United States should allow anyone to serve in the armed forces, regardless of sexual orientation.
Even among armed forces personnel, the belief that homosexuals should be permitted to serve unencumbered by their orientation is on the rise. A recent survey found that seven in 10 soldiers did not oppose the integration of openly gay servicemen and women into the armed forces. Those surveyed stated that the presence of homosexual individuals in their units did not have any bearing on their morale or unit cohesion. In other words, the law itself had been built on false assumptions.
The most interesting line of text in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” however, is not a false assumption. It is a statement the policy itself seems to disregard in relation to the people to which it applies: “The conduct of armed forces operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.” It is difficult to find people willing to make the sacrifices the armed forces requires. Anyone willing to make those sacrifices should be allowed to join the armed forces, regardless of orientation.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a starting point in the pursuit of equal rights for homosexual soldiers, but it was founded on unsupported and false assumptions and executed so that the armed forces disregarded its own needs in support of it. Its repeal ends 17 years of unfounded ignorance and illogical decisions, and opens the door to a new era in the U.S. armed forces. ?