A lot of articles
May. 10th, 2009 12:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
5 years on, gay marriage debate fades in Mass.
New York Senators Hedge on Gay Marriage
New York Senators Hedge on Gay Marriage
By JEREMY W. PETERS
ALBANY — Pose the question “Would you vote to make same-sex marriage legal?” within the gilded State Senate chamber, and you’ll hear a lot of hedging.
Senator Vincent L. Leibell, a Republican who represents parts of Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess Counties, prefers civil unions to marriage. Still, he acknowledged that “society changes over time,” and said that he might not make up his mind until the last minute.
Senator James S. Alesi, a Republican from Rochester who is considered to be another potential swing vote, has issued only vague statements hinting that he is open to voting yes. But he also said, “My public opinion has not been stated yet, and it probably won’t be for a while.”
With six weeks left before the Legislature adjourns for the year, uncertainty surrounds the fate of Gov. David A. Paterson’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage, and lobbying is intensifying.
The measure is expected to easily pass the State Assembly, which approved a similar bill in 2007 and has scheduled its vote for Tuesday.
That means the fate of the legislation will most likely be decided in the closely divided 62-member State Senate.
There, proponents believe they have about two dozen of the 32 votes needed for approval, including those of 19 Democrats who have signed on as sponsors of the measure.
Four of the Senate’s 32 Democrats have said they will vote against the legislation, and so far not a single Republican has publicly committed to supporting it.
Faced with these odds, gay rights groups like the Empire State Pride Agenda, the Log Cabin Republicans and the Human Rights Campaign have undertaken a highly methodical and personal campaign focusing on those senators from the North Country to Long Island who they believe may be open to backing the bill.
They have sent field operatives to those senators’ districts to identify constituents — straight or gay, religious or not, married or single — who are willing to make direct, personal appeals.
They have researched senators’ backgrounds, looking for inroads through any connections senators might have to gay people or to allies of the gay community. (They learned, for example, that Mr. Leibell’s law practice does estate planning for gay couples and that Mr. Alesi attends a church that blesses same-sex unions.)
Supporters of same-sex marriage have commissioned polls in more than a dozen Senate districts and have hired one of the state’s most influential lobbyists, Patricia Lynch, who has helped develop a strategy and has been meeting with undecided senators.
Those involved in the effort believe that they will have to win over about four Republican senators — a considerable challenge given the cohesion of the Senate Republican Conference.
But in a rare move for Albany, where much is decided by legislative leaders, the Senate minority leader, Dean G. Skelos, has told Republicans they should not feel bound by the party line on this issue.
Advocates of gay rights say this gives them an opening. “Republican legislators will be free to vote their conscience on this issue, without pressure,” said Jeff Cook, a legislative adviser for the Log Cabin Republicans. “And we know if people vote their hearts on this issue, we will win.”
As gay rights groups try to seize momentum from recent decisions to legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont, Iowa and Maine, opponents on the issue are working to be heard.
In New York, opponents of same-sex marriage are planning legislative outreach of their own and a rally next Sunday in front of Mr. Paterson’s office in New York City.
“There’s a fight in New York,” said Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes such measures. “But right now they don’t have the votes in the Senate to pass same-sex marriage. And as long as we’re able to connect with voters and have them connect with their senators, then marriage will remain the union of a man and a woman in New York.”
The personal appeals undertaken by advocates of gay rights are bringing mixed results.
Senator George Onorato, a Democrat from Queens, said in an interview last week that he was unlikely to support the bill, regardless of how many people try to persuade him. “They can have all the other privileges, but not marriage,” he said.
Proponents of same-sex marriage who visited Mr. Onorato in his office in Long Island City acknowledge they have not made much progress.
“He said right off the bat that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that this is a religious issue,” said Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, 31, a child advocacy lawyer who went to the senator’s office two weeks ago accompanied by a gay man and a straight official from one of the state’s most powerful labor unions.
“I explained to him that I go to church every week and that religion teaches us not to discriminate,” Mr. Frei-Pearson said, “and that ultimately your faith should be kept separate from this decision-making process.”
He said he also tried to appeal to Mr. Onorato by explaining that he was engaged to a black woman, and that an interracial relationship like his (Mr. Frei-Pearson is white) would have been frowned upon years ago, just as many gay relationships are today.
“None of that seemed to resonate,” Mr. Frei-Pearson said.
But advocates say they have made some headway with other senators who until recently opposed same-sex marriage.
Senator John L. Sampson, a Brooklyn Democrat, said last week that he had recently gone from no to undecided on the issue. “I do see it differently,” he said. “I can’t impose my own religious beliefs in a situation like this.”
Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson, a Democrat who represents parts of Westchester and the Bronx, also said she was reserving judgment on the issue.
“I always try to believe that I’m an open-minded person,” she said, adding that as a person with strong religious convictions — her father was a deacon, and her mother and sister are ministers — she found same-sex marriage to be a true test of her faith.
“This is an issue that challenges the fundamental beliefs that people have,” she said. “And it’s not easy.”
Gay rights groups are trying to ease concerns among senators who have religious objections to the legislation. They have begun referring to same-sex marriage as “same-sex civil marriage” to emphasize that the bill would not affect how religions choose to define marriage, and note that the bill contains a provision that says religious institutions cannot be forced to recognize same-sex unions.
Still, many senators remain uncomfortable. Patty Bentley, a librarian at the SUNY College at Plattsburgh, visited Senator Elizabeth Little, a Republican, with a group of students at the senator’s office in Albany last month. Ms. Bentley, a lesbian, told Ms. Little that she believed civil unions were inadequate.
When the hourlong meeting was over, Ms. Bentley said she did not know if Ms. Little could be persuaded to vote for same-sex marriage.
“I’m not sure she will,” Ms. Bentley said, “but I know she’s been willing to listen.”
In the Barracks, Out of the Closet - a rare case where the comments are better than the article itself, perhaps because they're screened. If you can, go read some of them
President Obama has said he will abolish the 16-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military only if they do not disclose their sexual orientation. Nationwide, polls show that a majority of Americans support lifting the ban on openly gay members of the military. But support in the military’s ranks and among retired officers is mixed. While several prominent retired generals and admirals have urged a repeal, others have said that allowing openly gay people to join the service would hurt recruiting and retention.
How would lifting the ban affect the military ranks? And, as the first step, if the president acts to change the policy, should it be by executive order or should it be by act of Congress?
* Aaron Belkin, Palm Center
* Aubrey Sarvis, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
* Robert Maginnis, retired Army officer
* Jon Soltz, VoteVets.org
* Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness
* Craig Jones, former British Royal Navy officer
* Brian E. A. Maue, U.S. Air Force Academy
* Edith A. Disler, retired Air Force officer
* Jim Inhofe, Republican senator from Oklahoma
We Need an Executive Order
Aaron Belkin is an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and director of the university’s Palm Center, which focuses on sexuality and the military.
Research shows that getting rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” need not be complicated.
Among the more than 20 nations that allow open gay service, each pursued its own path to implement the change. Even though the strategies varied, no foreign military has reported overall problems.
Successful transition requires only two things: First, leaders must send clear signals of support for the new policy. Second, military regulations must treat all people the same by holding all service members to a single standard that does not mention sexual orientation.
But what about the politics? While three quarters of the public, including a majority of Republicans, support open gay service, there is a stalemate in Congress, where conservatives from both parties block change.
The president should simply order the military to cease making findings about the troops’ sexual orientation.
A forthcoming study by experts in military law, sponsored by the Palm Center, shows that President Obama can circumvent the mess by signing an executive order commanding the military to suspend discharges for homosexuality. The law requires that the military discharge service members found to be gay. But nothing requires the military to reach such findings. The president should simply order the military to cease making findings about the troops’ sexual orientation.
Some worry that a future president could reverse such an order. But once people see gays serving openly and legally without problems, it will be politically impossible to go back to the way it was. For now, the best course of action is to proceed via executive order, not legislation.
An Act of Congress Is More Binding
Aubrey Sarvis is the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit policy and legal organization working to end “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
In 1993, Congress declared that it was O.K. to fire members of the armed forces because they’re gay.
But times have changed: a majority of the American people want this discriminatory law gone, and a solid majority of the younger generation of service members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t see the big deal with serving with gay people.
If an executive order were issued, the next president could come along and wipe it away.
Congress, and only Congress, can repeal the law, and it should do so cleanly. This is no time to entertain legal theories, interim or temporary solutions — like President Obama’s issuing an executive order under his national security umbrella.
If an executive order were issued, not only would there be an unnecessary and distracting showdown with the legislative branch, the next president could come along and wipe it away. Moreover, repeal by an act of Congress, coupled with a non-discrimination policy for the military, is the only sure-fire way to protect against future employment discrimination in the ranks based on sexual orientation.
But some Congressional supporters of repeal — incorrectly thinking that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is still the hot potato it was the 1990s — are sitting on the sidelines. They haven’t heard from the president lately on the subject, and they want to know where he stands before they act.
To show where he stands, President Obama should cut “don’t ask, don’t tell” from the defense budget he will be submitting to Congress shortly. It takes money to discharge and replace service members kicked out under the law. Trust me, Congress will get the message.
A Real Risk to Readiness
Robert Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television, and a senior strategist with the United States Army.
I was part of the Pentagon group that helped craft the homosexual ban. Needless to say, we certainly discussed the consequences for lifting the ban.
The ban protects combat effectiveness, which the Pentagon defined as the product of unit cohesion and readiness. Cohesive units are built through the constant and close association of people over time, which produces a mixture of trust and confidence. Openly serving gays polarize and fragment that critical trust and confidence.
We warned about the risks to readiness in terms of medical, recruiting and retention factors. The Army’s surgeon general said that there were increases in health costs associated with the gay lifestyle, and sociologists warned of the detrimental impact on recruiting and retention that would result from allowing gays to serve openly.
Openly serving gays polarize and fragment that critical trust and confidence that cohesive units depend upon.
Recently, more than 1,000 retired flag officers sent a letter to President Obama expressing their concern that lifting the ban would undermine recruiting and retention. This view is shared by many active-duty members who responded to the Military Times’ 2008 annual poll, which asked about homosexuality. It found that 10 percent would not re-enlist or extend their service and 14 percent would consider not re-enlisting if the ban were lifted.
We cautioned Congress about comparing other nations’ experiences with ours. Even countries with the most liberal homosexual policies, like the Netherlands, tend to apply policies that result in dissimilar treatment of homosexuals and besides, policies of other nations are seldom relevant for the U.S.
Finally, we advised Congress that our military discriminates on many bases to maintain combat readiness. That basic “discrimination” is reflected in the fact that only four in 10 young Americans qualify for service.
The burden of proof that lifting the ban would do no harm rests with those who would change the policy. So far, change advocates have offered no credible proof.
Integration Is Easy
Jon Soltz served as an Army captain in Iraq and Kosovo. He is chairman of VoteVets.org, a veterans organization with more than 100,000 members.
Currently most people opposed to a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” are delaying a decision by saying that the integration of openly gay soldiers is too difficult to do; but in reality, it’s pretty simple. This isn’t like integrating blacks and whites after World War II. We aren’t integrating anyone here. We are just allowing gays and lesbians in these units to stay.
The military has very strict guidelines that monitor heterosexual relationships under official codes of conduct to prevent fraternization in the ranks, specifically in regards to public affection in uniform and dating among officers and enlisted personnel. Those guidelines would simply be adjusted to include same-sex relationships as well.
Instead of wasting valuable time investigating if someone is gay, we can enforce the same laws used to govern heterosexual relationships.
Military Life Is Difficult Enough
Elaine Donnelly is the president of the Center for Military Readiness, a public policy organization that specializes in military/social issues.
Future officers should not have to cope with the consequences of repealing the 1993 law, often referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Current law recognizes that the military is a “specialized society” that is “fundamentally different from civilian life.” It appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians going home after work, must accept living conditions often “characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.”
Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in uniform.
Repealing this legislation would mandate “nondiscrimination” based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived” — essentially assigning special status to homosexuals. This would require constant “diversity training” to overcome normal human desires for modesty and privacy in sexual matters — an inappropriate quest that is unlikely to succeed. Corollary “zero tolerance” policies would deny promotions and end the careers of thousands of dissenting personnel, including chaplains. The result would be significant losses of experienced career personnel in grades and skills that are not easily replaced, breaking the all-volunteer force.
Put simply, changes in American popular culture do not justify policies that weaken military culture. Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in uniform.
What’s more, radical social change is unjustified, since discharges due to homosexuality are few compared with those for weight standard violations or pregnancy. Clarify the law by restoring “the question” about homosexuality that used to appear on routine induction forms, and such losses could be zero. Repeal the law, and personnel losses, voluntary and involuntary, could be huge.
No one has explained how repeal would improve recruiting, retention, team cohesion and readiness in our military. The 1993 law, which federal courts have upheld as constitutional several times, deserves continued support.
The View From Britain
A LanguageLog commentary about another gay linguist being fired by the Army
New York Senators Hedge on Gay Marriage
New York Senators Hedge on Gay Marriage
By JEREMY W. PETERS
ALBANY — Pose the question “Would you vote to make same-sex marriage legal?” within the gilded State Senate chamber, and you’ll hear a lot of hedging.
Senator Vincent L. Leibell, a Republican who represents parts of Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess Counties, prefers civil unions to marriage. Still, he acknowledged that “society changes over time,” and said that he might not make up his mind until the last minute.
Senator James S. Alesi, a Republican from Rochester who is considered to be another potential swing vote, has issued only vague statements hinting that he is open to voting yes. But he also said, “My public opinion has not been stated yet, and it probably won’t be for a while.”
With six weeks left before the Legislature adjourns for the year, uncertainty surrounds the fate of Gov. David A. Paterson’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage, and lobbying is intensifying.
The measure is expected to easily pass the State Assembly, which approved a similar bill in 2007 and has scheduled its vote for Tuesday.
That means the fate of the legislation will most likely be decided in the closely divided 62-member State Senate.
There, proponents believe they have about two dozen of the 32 votes needed for approval, including those of 19 Democrats who have signed on as sponsors of the measure.
Four of the Senate’s 32 Democrats have said they will vote against the legislation, and so far not a single Republican has publicly committed to supporting it.
Faced with these odds, gay rights groups like the Empire State Pride Agenda, the Log Cabin Republicans and the Human Rights Campaign have undertaken a highly methodical and personal campaign focusing on those senators from the North Country to Long Island who they believe may be open to backing the bill.
They have sent field operatives to those senators’ districts to identify constituents — straight or gay, religious or not, married or single — who are willing to make direct, personal appeals.
They have researched senators’ backgrounds, looking for inroads through any connections senators might have to gay people or to allies of the gay community. (They learned, for example, that Mr. Leibell’s law practice does estate planning for gay couples and that Mr. Alesi attends a church that blesses same-sex unions.)
Supporters of same-sex marriage have commissioned polls in more than a dozen Senate districts and have hired one of the state’s most influential lobbyists, Patricia Lynch, who has helped develop a strategy and has been meeting with undecided senators.
Those involved in the effort believe that they will have to win over about four Republican senators — a considerable challenge given the cohesion of the Senate Republican Conference.
But in a rare move for Albany, where much is decided by legislative leaders, the Senate minority leader, Dean G. Skelos, has told Republicans they should not feel bound by the party line on this issue.
Advocates of gay rights say this gives them an opening. “Republican legislators will be free to vote their conscience on this issue, without pressure,” said Jeff Cook, a legislative adviser for the Log Cabin Republicans. “And we know if people vote their hearts on this issue, we will win.”
As gay rights groups try to seize momentum from recent decisions to legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont, Iowa and Maine, opponents on the issue are working to be heard.
In New York, opponents of same-sex marriage are planning legislative outreach of their own and a rally next Sunday in front of Mr. Paterson’s office in New York City.
“There’s a fight in New York,” said Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes such measures. “But right now they don’t have the votes in the Senate to pass same-sex marriage. And as long as we’re able to connect with voters and have them connect with their senators, then marriage will remain the union of a man and a woman in New York.”
The personal appeals undertaken by advocates of gay rights are bringing mixed results.
Senator George Onorato, a Democrat from Queens, said in an interview last week that he was unlikely to support the bill, regardless of how many people try to persuade him. “They can have all the other privileges, but not marriage,” he said.
Proponents of same-sex marriage who visited Mr. Onorato in his office in Long Island City acknowledge they have not made much progress.
“He said right off the bat that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that this is a religious issue,” said Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, 31, a child advocacy lawyer who went to the senator’s office two weeks ago accompanied by a gay man and a straight official from one of the state’s most powerful labor unions.
“I explained to him that I go to church every week and that religion teaches us not to discriminate,” Mr. Frei-Pearson said, “and that ultimately your faith should be kept separate from this decision-making process.”
He said he also tried to appeal to Mr. Onorato by explaining that he was engaged to a black woman, and that an interracial relationship like his (Mr. Frei-Pearson is white) would have been frowned upon years ago, just as many gay relationships are today.
“None of that seemed to resonate,” Mr. Frei-Pearson said.
But advocates say they have made some headway with other senators who until recently opposed same-sex marriage.
Senator John L. Sampson, a Brooklyn Democrat, said last week that he had recently gone from no to undecided on the issue. “I do see it differently,” he said. “I can’t impose my own religious beliefs in a situation like this.”
Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson, a Democrat who represents parts of Westchester and the Bronx, also said she was reserving judgment on the issue.
“I always try to believe that I’m an open-minded person,” she said, adding that as a person with strong religious convictions — her father was a deacon, and her mother and sister are ministers — she found same-sex marriage to be a true test of her faith.
“This is an issue that challenges the fundamental beliefs that people have,” she said. “And it’s not easy.”
Gay rights groups are trying to ease concerns among senators who have religious objections to the legislation. They have begun referring to same-sex marriage as “same-sex civil marriage” to emphasize that the bill would not affect how religions choose to define marriage, and note that the bill contains a provision that says religious institutions cannot be forced to recognize same-sex unions.
Still, many senators remain uncomfortable. Patty Bentley, a librarian at the SUNY College at Plattsburgh, visited Senator Elizabeth Little, a Republican, with a group of students at the senator’s office in Albany last month. Ms. Bentley, a lesbian, told Ms. Little that she believed civil unions were inadequate.
When the hourlong meeting was over, Ms. Bentley said she did not know if Ms. Little could be persuaded to vote for same-sex marriage.
“I’m not sure she will,” Ms. Bentley said, “but I know she’s been willing to listen.”
In the Barracks, Out of the Closet - a rare case where the comments are better than the article itself, perhaps because they're screened. If you can, go read some of them
President Obama has said he will abolish the 16-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military only if they do not disclose their sexual orientation. Nationwide, polls show that a majority of Americans support lifting the ban on openly gay members of the military. But support in the military’s ranks and among retired officers is mixed. While several prominent retired generals and admirals have urged a repeal, others have said that allowing openly gay people to join the service would hurt recruiting and retention.
How would lifting the ban affect the military ranks? And, as the first step, if the president acts to change the policy, should it be by executive order or should it be by act of Congress?
* Aaron Belkin, Palm Center
* Aubrey Sarvis, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
* Robert Maginnis, retired Army officer
* Jon Soltz, VoteVets.org
* Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness
* Craig Jones, former British Royal Navy officer
* Brian E. A. Maue, U.S. Air Force Academy
* Edith A. Disler, retired Air Force officer
* Jim Inhofe, Republican senator from Oklahoma
We Need an Executive Order
Aaron Belkin is an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and director of the university’s Palm Center, which focuses on sexuality and the military.
Research shows that getting rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” need not be complicated.
Among the more than 20 nations that allow open gay service, each pursued its own path to implement the change. Even though the strategies varied, no foreign military has reported overall problems.
Successful transition requires only two things: First, leaders must send clear signals of support for the new policy. Second, military regulations must treat all people the same by holding all service members to a single standard that does not mention sexual orientation.
But what about the politics? While three quarters of the public, including a majority of Republicans, support open gay service, there is a stalemate in Congress, where conservatives from both parties block change.
The president should simply order the military to cease making findings about the troops’ sexual orientation.
A forthcoming study by experts in military law, sponsored by the Palm Center, shows that President Obama can circumvent the mess by signing an executive order commanding the military to suspend discharges for homosexuality. The law requires that the military discharge service members found to be gay. But nothing requires the military to reach such findings. The president should simply order the military to cease making findings about the troops’ sexual orientation.
Some worry that a future president could reverse such an order. But once people see gays serving openly and legally without problems, it will be politically impossible to go back to the way it was. For now, the best course of action is to proceed via executive order, not legislation.
An Act of Congress Is More Binding
Aubrey Sarvis is the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit policy and legal organization working to end “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
In 1993, Congress declared that it was O.K. to fire members of the armed forces because they’re gay.
But times have changed: a majority of the American people want this discriminatory law gone, and a solid majority of the younger generation of service members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t see the big deal with serving with gay people.
If an executive order were issued, the next president could come along and wipe it away.
Congress, and only Congress, can repeal the law, and it should do so cleanly. This is no time to entertain legal theories, interim or temporary solutions — like President Obama’s issuing an executive order under his national security umbrella.
If an executive order were issued, not only would there be an unnecessary and distracting showdown with the legislative branch, the next president could come along and wipe it away. Moreover, repeal by an act of Congress, coupled with a non-discrimination policy for the military, is the only sure-fire way to protect against future employment discrimination in the ranks based on sexual orientation.
But some Congressional supporters of repeal — incorrectly thinking that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is still the hot potato it was the 1990s — are sitting on the sidelines. They haven’t heard from the president lately on the subject, and they want to know where he stands before they act.
To show where he stands, President Obama should cut “don’t ask, don’t tell” from the defense budget he will be submitting to Congress shortly. It takes money to discharge and replace service members kicked out under the law. Trust me, Congress will get the message.
A Real Risk to Readiness
Robert Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television, and a senior strategist with the United States Army.
I was part of the Pentagon group that helped craft the homosexual ban. Needless to say, we certainly discussed the consequences for lifting the ban.
The ban protects combat effectiveness, which the Pentagon defined as the product of unit cohesion and readiness. Cohesive units are built through the constant and close association of people over time, which produces a mixture of trust and confidence. Openly serving gays polarize and fragment that critical trust and confidence.
We warned about the risks to readiness in terms of medical, recruiting and retention factors. The Army’s surgeon general said that there were increases in health costs associated with the gay lifestyle, and sociologists warned of the detrimental impact on recruiting and retention that would result from allowing gays to serve openly.
Openly serving gays polarize and fragment that critical trust and confidence that cohesive units depend upon.
Recently, more than 1,000 retired flag officers sent a letter to President Obama expressing their concern that lifting the ban would undermine recruiting and retention. This view is shared by many active-duty members who responded to the Military Times’ 2008 annual poll, which asked about homosexuality. It found that 10 percent would not re-enlist or extend their service and 14 percent would consider not re-enlisting if the ban were lifted.
We cautioned Congress about comparing other nations’ experiences with ours. Even countries with the most liberal homosexual policies, like the Netherlands, tend to apply policies that result in dissimilar treatment of homosexuals and besides, policies of other nations are seldom relevant for the U.S.
Finally, we advised Congress that our military discriminates on many bases to maintain combat readiness. That basic “discrimination” is reflected in the fact that only four in 10 young Americans qualify for service.
The burden of proof that lifting the ban would do no harm rests with those who would change the policy. So far, change advocates have offered no credible proof.
Integration Is Easy
Jon Soltz served as an Army captain in Iraq and Kosovo. He is chairman of VoteVets.org, a veterans organization with more than 100,000 members.
Currently most people opposed to a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” are delaying a decision by saying that the integration of openly gay soldiers is too difficult to do; but in reality, it’s pretty simple. This isn’t like integrating blacks and whites after World War II. We aren’t integrating anyone here. We are just allowing gays and lesbians in these units to stay.
The military has very strict guidelines that monitor heterosexual relationships under official codes of conduct to prevent fraternization in the ranks, specifically in regards to public affection in uniform and dating among officers and enlisted personnel. Those guidelines would simply be adjusted to include same-sex relationships as well.
Instead of wasting valuable time investigating if someone is gay, we can enforce the same laws used to govern heterosexual relationships.
Military Life Is Difficult Enough
Elaine Donnelly is the president of the Center for Military Readiness, a public policy organization that specializes in military/social issues.
Future officers should not have to cope with the consequences of repealing the 1993 law, often referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Current law recognizes that the military is a “specialized society” that is “fundamentally different from civilian life.” It appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians going home after work, must accept living conditions often “characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.”
Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in uniform.
Repealing this legislation would mandate “nondiscrimination” based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived” — essentially assigning special status to homosexuals. This would require constant “diversity training” to overcome normal human desires for modesty and privacy in sexual matters — an inappropriate quest that is unlikely to succeed. Corollary “zero tolerance” policies would deny promotions and end the careers of thousands of dissenting personnel, including chaplains. The result would be significant losses of experienced career personnel in grades and skills that are not easily replaced, breaking the all-volunteer force.
Put simply, changes in American popular culture do not justify policies that weaken military culture. Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in uniform.
What’s more, radical social change is unjustified, since discharges due to homosexuality are few compared with those for weight standard violations or pregnancy. Clarify the law by restoring “the question” about homosexuality that used to appear on routine induction forms, and such losses could be zero. Repeal the law, and personnel losses, voluntary and involuntary, could be huge.
No one has explained how repeal would improve recruiting, retention, team cohesion and readiness in our military. The 1993 law, which federal courts have upheld as constitutional several times, deserves continued support.
The View From Britain
A LanguageLog commentary about another gay linguist being fired by the Army
