Time to Pass HR 1283 and Let Gays Serve in the Military

Representative Ellen Tauscher of California has introduced legislation HR 1283: Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009 to replace Section 654 of U.S. code 10, which contains the current policy that bans gays from serving in the United States Armed Forces, also known as "don't ask, don't tell." The new legislation states, "The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the Armed Forces or against any person seeking to become a member of the Armed Forces."

In a predictable response, about 1,000 retired generals and admirals -- led by none other than retired Adm. Jerome Johnson, a key figure in the 1993 effort that led to the original discrimination against gays in the military -- wrote a letter to President Obama, opposing the new legislation. Mr. Johnson went further in his effort and co-wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on April 15 along with James Lindsay and E.G. Shuler Jr. and Joseph Went, titled "Gays and The Military: A Bad Fit" and appeared on NPR's Talk of The Nation on Monday to further argue his points. Throughout the op-ed, as well as during his appearance, he made a series of flawed arguments.

Adm. Johnson's points, as well as those of others who support "don't ask, don't tell," can be roughly put under the umbrellas of three main arguments.

The first argument is that as older legislation asserted, the military is a "specialized society" with a culture that is traditional, and so changing the rules on gays would "impose a burden" on the military, hurt recruitment and retention and discourage parents from encouraging their children to join the Armed Forces. On Monday, Adm. Johnson referred to surveys done by Military Times over four years, claiming that 58% of the military oppose allowing gays to serve openly and 14% would end their careers in the military in the event that the rules are changed.

But this argument ignores the history of addressing discrimination in the military. When President Truman ordered the military to desegregate in 1948, the vast majority of the military -- not to mention the population in most of the countries from the South where a big portion of the members of the military come from -- had sharply racist tendencies against the blacks. When he sent his 10-point program to Congress on February 2, 1948, instructing "the Secretary of Defense to take steps to have the remaining instances of discrimination in the armed services eliminated as rapidly as possible," he endured a storm of criticism from Southern Democrats in the run-up to the national nominating convention. But even when support for discrimination spread so far beyond the military and political stakes were so high, his response was not to postpone doing what was right. Instead, he responded by saying "My forebears were Confederates....But my very stomach turned over when I had learned that Negro soldiers, just back from overseas, were being dumped out of Army trucks in Mississippi and beaten." President Truman ordered the military's desegregation because he understood that the traditional culture of the military and appeasement to any biases and racism that may have been associated with it was not a condition that he had to accept as the price of having a strong army.

In 2009, President Obama faces a similar question on gays with only a few important differences that make it even more important for him to eliminate discrimination. First, the national tolerance of gays is already much higher than tolerance of blacks in the late 1940s, making it all the more pressing for the military's culture to change and become more aligned with national sentiments and standards on equality. Secondly, the economy is in a much worse condition than it was shortly after the war. This lowers the likelihood that the members of the military will be abandoning their careers because of any change of policy on gays. And for those who are so steadfast in their beliefs to abandon their careers, the number is likely to be so small to be comparable with the number of careers of gays in the military that are constantly ruined after they are outed. Even if admission of gays to the military will cause a small net decrease in recruitment, that change will be short-term as the military has previously showed that even when the majority of its members strongly support discrimination (1948), they would rather change and accept the new rules than quitting the army.

The two other sets of arguments that Adm. Johnson and others make against allowing gays to serve is that service is not a constitutional right, but a privilege that is given to those who meet strict military standards and show the capacity to endure long periods of intensive trainings. But what Adm. Johnson misunderstands is that the question here is not whether service is a right, but rather whether every citizen in this country is given an equal opportunity to compete for the privilege to serve or some have systematically and discriminately banned from competition solely based on their inherent characteristics, rather than physical abilities. Proponents of gays' right to serve do not argue for loosened standards or less intensive trainings for gays. They simply argue that as citizens, they should be given an equal opportunity to compete on a leveled playing field. Providing them with such opportunity will only lead to more competition, and ultimately a more competitive and capable army.

Finally, Adm. Johnson makes the point that even if gays are allowed to serve, they will continue to face discrimination by being shut out of leadership positions within the military, leading them to resent their conditions in the army and becoming potentially vulnerable to manipulation by the enemy and even becoming security risk for the army. But of course, even if the army proves incapable of prosecuting and preventing discrimination after the laws are changed, the admiral's argument cuts both ways. Because gays who are regularly outed and kicked out of the army due to their sexual orientation have both more reasons to resent the U.S. army and in a potentially more economic need that can be fulfilled by cooperation and exchange of intelligence with the enemy.

It is hard to believe that this country continues to debate simple issues of discrimination in 2009. What the opponents of gays' serving in the military do not admit are all the advantages that will come from a more inclusive policy. Allowing gays will lead to thousands of more gays to consider a career in the military. In addition, it will make the U.S. army more representative of the beliefs of Americans on foreign soils. The reason for this lack of admission is that individuals like Adm. Johnson and other socially conservative members of the military have for years been warning against the elimination of discrimination against gays in the army not by expressing their views as personal and subjective, but as what they claim are objective assessments of the situations. But no matter what the motivations, their arguments remain unconvincing and unsupported by evidence. It is time President Obama supports the reversal of "don't ask, don't tell" and pushes the military to change as the rest of the country has changed.

Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter

Comments

[cure077]

I would like to comment as a lesbian serving in the US Army. I have served for over 12 years and I will serve until they kick me out. I've been to Iraq twice, servied in a combat zone, and I am highly decorated. The Army is full of Lesbians. I'd say at least 70% of the higher ranking females are lesbians. The funny part is that everyone knows it. Because of this policy, I am not just not allowed to tell, I am not allowed to act on my sexuality. I must lie and hide in order to keep my job. In America, I have to "un-gay" my house if my boss comes over. In America, I have to use "he" instead of "she" when discussing weekend plans. In America, if I get promoted, I can't have my partner attend my ceremony. This policy is wrong and anyone who says it isn't is wrong.

[truthartbeauty]

they are willing to fight for this country! for rights they themselves don't have. I'd say give them a break! They are fighting so homophobic bigots everywhere can say whatever nonsense they please.

[RightWingMarine]

while there would certainly be conflict if gays were openly admitted to the military, particurally in the beginning, I believe it should be permitted. There will be distrust, violence and allegations of sexual harassment (levied by both gays and straights) I believe that the military will adapt. Gays, like all recruits, will learn to adopt the military ethos and straights will get over it.

There will always be resentment, there are still instances of women in the service being looked down upon as unequal, but my reasoning to permit gays in the military is the same as the reason to admit women; so long as they are physically capable to doing the same work as the averge male and so long as their body will stop a bullet the same as mine I see no reason to exclude them from service.

[truthfulb]

I do not want to know if another person is gay if I am in the military especially during boot camp. I do not care what you anybody say I am not comfortable being in the shower with a openly gay man and during boot camp it is open showers and toilets. I do not care if gays are in the military because they are and that is a fact. I just do not need nor do I have the desire to know what you do in your personal life.

[Caleb Critchfield]

guess what dude, there were gay men in the shower with you in boot camp, there are gay men serving with you now. they have seen you naked and nobody even made a pass at you. so, you're either butt ugly and you need to get over yourself or there really isn't a problem and you need to get over yourself. deal with it.

[roch20]

I think it would be a good idea if we unite all citizens and to send a strong message to the President through e-mails or some kind of correspondence! Cause i'm getting really annoyed more and more each day by this President (and i voted for him)!

[brijo731]

This country is not worth the life of any gay man or lesbian. This country does not consider us as equals. I am an ashamed American. The promise of America is a lie.

[truthfulb]

You are equal people kill me with that you have the same rights that I do. The only difference is that I can get married in all 50 states and you can not but that too will change soon. I do not hear any gay person screaming for the rights of the downside of marriage. Child support, alimony and the other things that go along with it. I am for all o be happy and even though I am not for the word gay marriage but I am for gay couples to have toe same rights as their married counter parts.

[SeymourButz]

I don't think its a good idea to let an openly gay person serve in the military, especially a gay man. If you knew anything about military culture, you would agree with me.

[midknightryder13]

I actually know a great deal about military culture. They'll adapt -- just like society has. (And it's not as lf no other military forces in the world have considered this -- Israel and Great Britain to name two.)

[truthartbeauty]

paranoid? no one's looking at you. grow up

[JonSmiley]

Yes indeed. I agree with the entire article.