Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Logic? Where?

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), for some reason, angers me more than any other of the discriminatory laws against the LGBTQ community. It seems to me the most ridiculous, the most illogical of them all. Not only does it defy the Constitution (where it says that those who serve in the military must take an oath to preserve the tenets of the US Constitution, where it also says no law shall limit a person’s civil rights and his/her pursuit of happiness and that there can no longer be a ‘separate but equal’ clause), but it also makes no sense in the context of the opponent’s usual tirade of anti-gay speeches.

First of all, I can understand (but not agree, never agree) with the opposition’s aversion towards gay marriage. They have created a tenet for themselves and, in fact, many of those anti-gay Christians oppose gay marriage but are actually in support of gay people. I don’t agree with the stance that they’ve taken, but I can see that little shred of logic that they’re hanging on to.

But does the Bible ever say anywhere, even when taken out of its context, even when the meaning is skewed to its greatest degree (as is done with gay marriage), that gays cannot serve openly in the military? The Homosexual Conduct chapter of military code, in fact contradicts the oath that all military servicemen and women must take, that they will not lie or commit falsehood. But under DADT, it is expected of gay military to hide and lie their sexuality. Oh?

Furthermore, who is to say that being gay limits one’s ability to serve in the military? What is it about being gay that makes one unfit for the battlefield? You know, I’ve heard the argument that gay men will go out onto the field and will worry more about breaking their nails than anything else. That’s bullshit. This is the 21st century, and enlisting in the military is voluntary. People who enlist generally know what they’re getting into. And because gay men and straight women are usually synonymous with each other, couldn’t you say that straight women would be the same? And since dykes and straight men are usually synonymous with each other, couldn’t you say that dykes would be ‘okay’ in the military? You would think, no?

From my own experience, I know that coming out of the closet and being openly gay has made me much more confident than before. I have a greater sense of who I am, and I therefore have a greater sense of my abilities. I am confident. Then imagine all the gays in the military, condemned to remain closeted. They too would be more confident, I think, if they came out of the closet. And if they were more confident, couldn’t they serve better? The Athenians knew it; they military actually encouraged gay lovers, and put them side by side in battles, so that they would fight harder. The Spartans (arguably one of the greatest military forces in history) knew it; they encouraged gay lovers too.

Now, while DADT is simply through and through immoral, it’s just plain stupid. I mean, forget the morals of whether or not gays should be in the military or not. But let’s look at the situation, this awful predicament that we’re in. With the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, we need soldiers. It’s true; we simply do not have enough. In fact, CNN recently reported that many US soldiers are being deployed internationally up to four times a year, to areas in the Middle East. This puts a strain on both the soldiers and their families. The psychological strain on the soldiers is rising exponentially, and reports show that military suicides are on the rise. Not only do we need more soldiers in general, we need more specialized servicemen and women in the military. In fact, many of the gays who have been dishonorably discharged were Arabic translators (or other special professionals), the type of soldier the military is now actually lacking.

Long story short, DADT is immoral. It’s illogical and it’s immoral. But beyond that it’s just stupid, and we have to ask ourselves; in this time of crises, can we afford to let go of these important soldiers?