The principal argument against allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in the armed forces is that it would undermine "unit cohesiveness." A new study by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa contradicts that claim and suggests Congress should repeal the 15-year-old "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban and allow openly gay service members.
The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.
"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.
To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.
More than 12,500 gays and lesbians have been discharged from the military based on "don’t ask, don’t tell," and, reports suggest it cost taxpayers nearly $200 million to recruit and train replacements. In June, a federal appellate court upheld the ban, and, while legislation has been introduced to repeal the law, it has stalled and probably won't move anytime soon.
On the heels of this new report, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram publishes an editorial urging Congress to repeal of DADT. "Gays shouldn’t be barred from the military just because some troops might be homophobic. It wasn’t right in an earlier era for the military or big-league baseball to discriminate against African-Americans just because some troops or ballplayers were racist."
Study: Gays in military don't threaten morale [P1Q]
Allow Those Who Wish to Serve, Serve [Star-Telegram]
Some Background ...
Court of Appeals Upholds "Don't Ask" [R20]
Joint Chiefs Nominee: Congress Can Reconsider "Don't Ask" [R20]
Romney Defends Pace's Anti-Gay Remarks [R20]
Joint Chiefs Chairman Criticizes Gays [R20]
Former Joint Chiefs Chairman: End DADT [R20]
Former Defense Secretary: End DADT [R20]
Colin Powell on Guantanamo [R20]
Joint Chiefs Chairman Regrets Criticizing Gays [R20]
General Says Bush Worst Thing to Happen [R20]
Former Defense Secretary: End DADT [R20]
Former Joint Chiefs Chair: End DADT [R20]
Most Soldiers Support Gays [R20]
Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Hearings? [R20]
News: DADT, Maryland Hearings [R20]
News: Don't Ask, Don't Tell [R20]
Thanks Rod for posting this. It's good to see my hometown of Fort Worth leading so righteously here. People think of Texas as being backwards, but those who do haven't been to the cities of Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, and Austin, where urban folks in this now minority-majority state are turning Texas purple. We still have a way to go but there is a lot of young, driven energy here, especially in our inner city communities. When Bob Ray Sanders, of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (perhaps the most well-known black columnist in Texas) wrote a (favorable) piece about my book www.ghettoplainsman.com and organization in Jan, basically outing me publicly for the first time, I expected hell. But surprisingly, most people been very cool, and that in turn has made me even more comfortable with the whole 'gay thing." In fact, this is the first time I'm posting under my own name.
We have more straight allies than we think. Which is not to say we shouldn't still watch our back, but things are changing. And being cool with ourselves helps further this. Still a work in progress mos definitely -- ( my state, and me too) -- but that's the word from Texas ebody. Thanks fo' listenin. :]
Posted by: Jarid Manos | 09 July 2008 at 16:57
About damn time someone said that. I was in the military for 4 years and some of the best soldiers were gay.
Posted by: Nite In Shining Armour | 09 July 2008 at 18:51
The Persian king Cyrus dealt with the issue of gays in the military 2600 years ago. I'm not talking about the Greek institution of man-boy love, either, or the Sacred Band of Thebes made up of ordinary men who were in male-to-male love bonds. I am talking about honest-to-goodness, innately and exclusively homosexual men of the modern type.
Back in the fifth century BC, the Greek historian Xenophon wrote that Cyrus believed that men who were impotent with women or disinclined toward heterosexual sex:
"when deprived of this desire, they become gentler, no doubt, but not less quick to obey, not less daring as horsemen, not less skilful with the javelin, not less eager for honour. In war and in the hunt they show plainly enough that the fire of ambition is still burning in their hearts. And they have stood the last test of loyalty in the downfall of their masters. None have shown more faithfulness than eunuchs when ruin has fallen on their lords. In bodily strength, perhaps, the eunuchs seem to be lacking, but steel is a great leveller, and makes the weak man equal to the strong in war."
[Granted, he is talking about "eunuchs," but having researched the subject, I believe that in the ancient world "eunuch" was what an innately and exclusively homosexual man would have been called.]
Posted by: Mark | 10 July 2008 at 00:40