In a country deeply entrenched in two wars, the subject of allowing gays to openly serve in the military has become a ‘hot button’ topic. Recently, President Barack Hussein Obama announced that he will lift the ban barring homosexuals from openly serving in our nation’s military ranks.
President Obama is actively seeking to overturn former President Bill Clinton’s 1993 “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy. Obama’s decision is based on the growing assumption that a homosexual military member can perform their duties just as well or better than their heterosexual counterparts.
As a former Non Commissioned Officer (NCO) in the United States Army with 16 years of active duty service, I do not believe this is the appropriate course of action.
Although our newly elected President may have the best of intentions in mind, his decision is far from utilitarian.
His wish to change the DADT policy does not reflect the opinion of the majority of Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines, or Coast Guardsmen currently serving our country.In a recent survey conducted by the Military Times newspaper, 58 percent of the military members polled opposed allowing homosexuals to serve openly. The same poll also indicated that approximately 23 percent of those polled said they would not reenlist if the current policy is changed.
In contrast, a poll conducted by CNN indicated that an overwhelming 81 percent of Americans believed gays should be allowed to serve openly in the United States Armed Forces.
To the lay person, the CNN poll would seem to indicate that a majority of Americans support the lifting of Bill Clinton’s “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy. However, the CNN poll did not specifically poll members of the United States Armed Forces.
What group of people would be a better indicator of the support/non-support of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military?
Would your average Joe Civilian be a good indicator, or would a currently serving military member or veteran be a better one?
I would say those serving in today’s military would be far more in tune with this issue than a civilian that has no direct involvement in the day to day operation of a nation at war.
With military retention levels at its lowest levels in recent years, can the United States of America afford to lose even one soldier? This is a gamble Our Nationcannot afford to take.Although I agree with the assumption that a homosexual service member could perform their duties just as well (or as bad as) as a heterosexual counterpart, I do not think that simply changing the current policy would address the entire issue
For example, most military barracks consist of two-person rooms that are shared by military members of the same sex. For sake of argument, let us assume that one of these individuals is openly gay and the other is not.
Due to the close living quarters, both individuals share a common latrine and shower. They would routinely have to dress and undress in close proximity.
Would it not be natural for the homosexual individual to possibly enjoy seeing their roommate nude or semi nude? Could we then assume that the heterosexual roommate could feel uncomfortable or even threatened by this situation?
This situation could be likened to pairing a male soldier with another female soldier for a roommate. Any reasonable person could imagine the complications that would create.
A soldier living in single soldier housing (aka the barracks) is subject to what Elainne Donnelly called “forced intimacy. Elainne Donnelly went on to say in her U.S News & World Report article (June 2009), “Stated in gender-neutral terms, changing the existing law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them.
If the United States Military, as a whole, does not allow soldiers of the opposite sex to share a barracks room, why should they allow homosexuals to be paired with heterosexuals?
Keep in mind, that by definition, homosexuals are attracted to persons of the same gender. As a former Non Commissioned Officer in the Army, I encountered several situations involving obviously homosexual soldiers in regards to barracks housing
In only one out of eight situations did a heterosexual soldier not mind beinghoused with a presumptively gay roommate. In those other seven cases, special arrangement had to be made to prevent a conflict.
One may argue saying: “How did you know that a particular soldier was gay if those soldiers could not indicate their homosexuality openly due to the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy? My answer to that is: Because it was obvious and, in most cases, their homosexuality was thinly veiled.
According to Department of Defense Policy: “Homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service” and, “Bi-sexual conduct is treated the same way as homosexual conduct.
The Department of Defense goes on to describe “homosexual/bisexual conduct” as: “Bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and bodily contact that a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.”
Proving homosexual conduct, in the military, admittedly is difficult. Simply put, a soldier would either have to admit their homosexuality outright or be caughtperforming a homosexual act.My primary opposition to allowing gays to serve openly in the military is that it would undermine the morale and focus of our nation’s warriors. Our nation’s warriors have more important things to focus on other than wondering if their roommate or fellow homosexual soldier is “checking them out.”
If the country were to allow gays to serve openly in the military, would we then have to allow them the same rights of a heterosexual married couple? Would it then be appropriate for Private Pat and Private Tracy to walk hand in hand to the local Post Exchange?
Furthermore, would we have to provide for a special latrine facility and barracks for gay service members? The military already houses single soldiers in either male only or female only rooms.
If the current policy were to be changed would we then have to further separate the rooms and latrine facilities as: heterosexual male, heterosexual female; homosexual male, homosexual female?
Not only would this endeavor be time consuming and cumbersome but also extremely expensive. Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military will only serve as a segue into these types of issues. Our current military situation does not afford us the time or the money to address these issues. Are we prepared to open this Pandora’s Box? I think not.While our new President is attempting to appease every special interest group in America (such as the pro-gay in the military supporters), he is simultaneously undermining our nation’s military culture.
President Obama (and those supporting gays in the military) need to focus on winning the War on Terrorism instead of trying to accommodate the minority of homosexual service members wanting to serve openly in the military.
If homosexuals wish to serve in the United States Armed Forces, let them. However, let them keep their secret to themselves – but please keep the closet door shut.In the end, I respect the opinion of the Foghorn, however, your article seems to be a bit ‘uninformed’.
Perhaps in the future you may want to ask some of the student veterans what their thoughts are on this topic. Just my two cents,H.P. AshleyUS Army (Airborne/Air Assault) 1989-2005Del Mar Student, Nursing Major
Be the first to comment on this article!