Dont Ask, Don T Tell Policy

Military Policy Analysis and Resource Paper

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was in effect from 1993 until 2011 and was the official policy that prohibited the United States Military from harassing or discriminating against closeted gay, lesbian and bisexual service members but, at the same time, barred openly gay, lesbian and bisexual service members from serving at all. As such, it bred, in the U.S. Military, an environment of secrecy designed to keep individuals in the closet. Now that the policy has been repealed, there is an expectation, among some, that everyone is free to, and should, come out.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been a policy enforced
in the United States Armed Forces, however the attitudes of this policy in some aspects has transferred to the business sector. Some American citizens believe the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is effective, yet others find it problematic. The policy has affected not only homosexuals wanting to serve our country, but also those attempting to find employment.
Homosexuals serving in the military have been a long debated topic throughout U.S. history. As early as Revolutionary War times, the military did not exclude homosexuals from serving our country. However, they did consider sodomy a criminal offense. According to the “Article 125 of Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits all service members from engaging in sodomy. Service members found violating this article can be court-martialed and imprisoned if found guilty.” (Alexander, 2007) Sodomy is defined as, “anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex” (Nicholas, 2006). The military’s main focus was on homosexual behavior, but eventually shifted to eliminate homosexual personnel all together. During this time, psychiatric evaluations were administered to prevent homosexuals from entering the military due to an alleged “medical” reason.
Up to now, the White House has focused on an aggressive effort to socialize our economy through the bailout of the auto industry, institution of the cap-and-trade system, various stimulus and bailout programs, and a takeover of the healthcare sector (Bedey, 2010). Although these topics are still relevant, recently the motion to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” has become one of the most talked about subjects. Before we get into debate, one must know the basic principles of the policy and its history of origin.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” (DADT) is a ban on lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders serving in the military.
DADT is the only law in the United States that authorizes the discharging of an American for being gay. There are no other federal, state, or local laws like it. DADT is the only law that punishes lesbians, gays bisexuals and transgenders for coming out. Many Americans view DADT as a simple agreement with discretion as the key to job security. While this is true to some extent, in the eyes of a homosexual service member, it may not be so simple. An honest statement of one’s sexual orientation to anyone, anywhere, at anytime will lead to being fired. (Service Members Legal Defense Network,
2010)
The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass” policy affects many people in the Armed Forces. Active Duty, Reserves, National Guard, Individual Ready Reserves, Service Academies, and Reserve Officer Training Corps are all affect by this policy. Each of these groups can be investigated and discharged if they have engaged in homosexual conduct in military or civilian attire or settings. Female service members face more anti-gay comments and accusations than male service members. Regardless of their sexual orientation women are often referred to as being a lesbian in the military. “Women have been consistently discharged at a rate nearly twice their presence in the services since the implementation of the law.” (Alexander, 2007)
DADT was the result of a failed effort by President Clinton to end the ban on gays in the military. The bill was a result of the brutal 1992 murder of Seaman Allen Shindler (Jameson, 1994). Bill Clinton, a candidate at the time, proposed ending the ban by issuing an Executive Order overriding the Department of Defense regulations that barred gays from serving their country. Congress, however, intervened and the ban was made law, theoretically preventing action by future Commanders in Chief (Service Members Legal Defense Network, 2010).
This law was significantly different from prior prohibitions on military service in three ways. First, Congressional and military leaders acknowledged, for the first time in 1993, that lesbians, gays and bisexuals serve our nation and do so honorably. Second, the policy also states sexual orientation is no longer a bar to military service. Third, President Clinton, Congress and military leaders agreed to end intrusive questions about service members’ sexual orientation and to stop the military’s infamous investigations to ferret out suspected lesbian, gay and bisexual service members. They agreed to take steps to prevent anti-gay harassment. (Service Members Legal Defense Network, 2010)
The law became known in 1993 as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” to indicate the new limits to investigations and the purpose to respect service members’ privacy.
So what are the pros of DADT? The pros are simple. If you repeal the law, then more people will feel at ease serving in the military. In addition, in a country that’s preaching equality more and more, having the policy seems somewhat contradictory. Private employers cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, yet the country’s military can. But then again, the military society is much different than that of civilians.
In order to understand this more thoroughly, you will need to have a clearer concept of the United States Code. Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society. Its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions characterize the military society, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, which would not be acceptable in civilian society.
The key point here is the existence of a military community. One of the strongest factors in military units is cohesion and personal bonds shared by fellow men. In the midst of battle, emotions can get the best of a man. In order to cope with these emotions men turn to their lives back at home. Soldiers will tell their fellow comrades about their children and wife waiting back home and bond over it. When it’s the beginning of a military operation and everyone is sharing their personal lives and the next person to share happens to be a gay man, does he respond by saying he misses his husband and adopted child, or stay silent?
If the policy is indeed repealed, the man has two apparent choices: share who he really is or is not. If he decides to tell the truth, he consciously risks being rejected by his fellow soldiers that he will be fighting with. Now considering the time and society that we live in, when gays are becoming more accepted, some might understand where the man is coming from. But it is an undeniable fact that military communities are rooted in traditional values. Among these values is belief in the sanctity of traditional marriage (Bedey, 2010).
The fundamental debate of DADT lies in whether or not this man should be in the position make this decision. Before I started researching for this paper I was pretty adamant about the repeal of DADT. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve.
The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is a great tax burden on American taxpayers. Since critically important skilled soldiers have been discharged from the military due to their sexual orientation, it has cost the United States millions of dollars trying to replace these valuable soldiers who were discharged.
Then after talking to my conservative minded father and researching on republican blogs, my perspective changed. Don’t get me wrong, I am all about advancing the rights of gay Americans, but not if it is at the cost of national security. When a gay person decides to be open about his/her sexual orientation, surely there will be some that respect them for the person they are. But, there will be those that are uncomfortable with it, and others that are completely against it. As long as there are those people in this world, I don’t believe that the repeal of DADT would work.
If gays were only put into non-combat positions (granted those parameters would never be tolerated by gay-rights activists) it could possibly work. But in combat positions, soldiers are close-knit groups. In the film Jarhead, the main theme I got out of it was that men fight not for causes, but to survive and to help their comrades do the same. Emotions run very high. When the aura of death is surrounding, men seek salvage in each other for comfort. But for some men, it’s very hard to feel comforted by a gay man. In the American military, combat is fueled by camaraderie, and as long as there are those who are uncomfortable with homosexuality, this companionship can’t be felt and the effectiveness of the military is weakened.
Although the policy has been repealed it is important to note that there is still no protection in the military against discrimination based on sexual orientation and there, still, exists unequal treatment of LGBT service members. I would suggest to LGBT Service members that it’s important to proceed in the manner that feels most right to them, taking careful time to explore and negotiate all options, as coming out is a very personal decision and there, truly, is no right or wrong way for an individual to come out. It is so very important that we, as social workers, and as mental health practitioners, create a safe environment and strive to do no harm to those clients who actively seek our help and support.

Reference
BARNES, E.P., & JULIAN E.
(2010) “U.S. Seeks to Delay 'Don't Ask' Injunction.” Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from . Bedey, D. F., (2010). “Exclusive: Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: A Clear and Present Dang”. Family Security Matters. Retrieved from .
Burrelli, D. F. (2010).“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: The Law and Military Policy on Same-Sex Behavior." Congressional Research Service: 1-25. Web. 23 November, 2013.
Jameson, S. (1994), "U.S. Sailor Sentenced to Life Imprisonment in Murder", Los Angeles Times, retrieved 21 November, 2013.
Nicholas C. Edsall (2006). Toward Stonewall: Homosexuality and Society in the Modern Western World. University of Virginia Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 0813925436. Retrieved November 21, 2013.
Service Members Legal Defense Network. (2003). “SLDN Survival Guide.”. Retrieved from .
Smith, J. (2010). “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell 2010 Military Pros and Cons, Vote Amid GOP Filibuster.” CNM News Network. Retrieved from . “TEN YEARS OF “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL.” (2003). A DISSERVICE TO THE NATION Retrieved .
Aaron T., Alexander, S., Emily H., Kathi S., Matt R., & Sharra E. G. (2007)"The Survival Guide." A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” AND RELATED MILITARY POLICIES 5: 1-82. Service Members Legal Defense
Network.
Stanford Public Interest Law Foundation; Service Members Legal Defense Network, 2007. Web. 22 November. 2013.