the issue of "don't ask, don't tell" has been a heated issue in recent months. gay rights advocates have said that president obama hasn't done enough, quickly enough, for gay rights. at a recent human rights campaign gala, the president has said that he intends to repeal "don't ask, don't tell". while the policy, introduced in 1993, was right for its time, it has now reached its expiration date and needs to be tossed.
prior to "don't ask, don't tell", the military would discharge (generally, undesirably, or dishonorably) any person who was found to be gay, regardless of any homosexual act. the military's stance was this:
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.
the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was a compromise with the above regulation and allowing gays to serve openly in the military. it can be said that DADT, in its time, was a step forward to allow homosexuals to serve in the military. today, it seems archaic to discharge qualified, experienced soldiers simply because they are gay.
since enacted, DADT has cost close to $363 million dollars, including $14.3 million for "separation travel" once a service member is discharged, $17.8 million for training officers, $252.4 million for training enlistees and $79.3 million in recruiting costs. WHAT?! just because you discharged a competent solider or officer for being gay?!?!?!
while reading USA Today yesterday, i came across the following letter on the op/ed page:
NO GAYS IN MILITARY
As a retired Air Force pilot with combat experience during the Persian Gulf War, let me provide your readers with a typical commander's assessment of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy: We should have never had it in the first place.
Discrimination against those who desire to serve in the armed forces is not only historic, it's also essential. Putting together an effective fighting force is the responsibility of civilian and military commanders, whether in the field, the Pentagon or the White House.
National military police, which I helped to craft, should enhance commanders' functions, not hamstring them. I had enough problems with sleeping arrangements for women on my aircrew, let alone gay men.
I should not have to worry about room assignments, who's bunking with whom, who is offended by the gay soldier or airman, or whether he's angry because no one will talk to him. I am a father to my daughter, not to men in combat.
These issues, and many others that social experiments create, stand squarely in the way of developing an effective fighting force. America, the U.S. armed forces to exist to protect you and your way of life, not to appease the desires of those on the fringe of society.
Keith Hutcheson
Athens, Ga.
WTF, mr. hutcheson. WTF, editors of USA Today. how can such blatant bigotry be published in a national newspaper? i would like to respond to his letter, but am still unable what i want to say or how i want to say it. i will say though, after reading his letter, i wasn't initially angry; i was hurt.
let me pull a few of mr. hutcheson's comments from his letter and respond:
"...let me provide your readers with a typical commander's assessment of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy: We should have never had it in the first place."
this might be the only statement where we may, slightly agree. (although i'm sure he won't agree with me in the way i can agree.) soliders should have always been able to serve as openly gay men and women.
"Discrimination against those who desire to serve in the armed forces is not only historic, it's also essential."
are you saying we SHOULD discriminate who should and should not serve in the military? should it only be big, strong, virile men? just a hunch that mr. hutcheson wouldn't want to discriminate on race....
"I had enough problems with sleeping arrangements for women on my aircrew, let alone gay men."
oh, you poor thing. if you would have been able to discriminate like you wanted, women wouldn't be part of the armed forces either, would they. after all, they merely create sleeping issues.
"I should not have to worry about room assignments, who's bunking with whom, who is offended by the gay soldier or airman, or whether he's angry because no one will talk to him."
exactly. after all, gay men will ravage all the other men in the bunk. that's what the gays do...sleep with everything that walks in front of them. (mr. hutcheson, the gays have standards. i can say that i, for one, would have NO desrire to bunk with you.) and the gays will be crying and whining because no one will talk to them. after all, gays are just a bunch of sissies.
"These issues, and many others that social experiments create,..."
i can assure you that homosexually is NO social experiment. are you still reading publications that are decades old?!
"America, the U.S. armed forces to exist to protect you and your way of life, not to appease the desires of those on the fringe of society."
and you better damn believe that those fringes will be cute! some gay designer has been cutting that leather just right and bedazzling it with sequins and jewels just for you!
*sigh* ahh, it was nice to mock the bigotry of mr. keith hutcheson of athens, ga.
i will now step off of my rainbow-colored soapbox (decorated with pink feathers and rhinestones, naturally).
and if you haven't seen this already, watch this interview. one more discharged reason why "don't ask, don't tell" needs to be repealed.
3 comments:
there are so, so many things i could say in response to this but i will try not to write a novel here. it sickens and saddens me that mr. hutcheson was an influential leader in the lives of members of our us airforce. it is very likely that this man was in charge of not only straight men, but also gay men and women (both gay and straight). the contempt and disrespect he spews toward those who are different from himself is disgusting and offensive at best. i am sorry for those who had to serve under him and be exposed to his "good ol' boy" mentality. i sincerely hope that he is the exception, not the rule, in the overall opinion of commanding officers regarding gays in the military.
we as a country should be grateful for anyone who is willing to enlist and put their lives on the line for our protection and freedom, regardless of whether those soldiers are gay, straight, male, female, poor, rich or of different cultural backgrounds. we should be commending these people for their courage, not degrading them for their gender or sexual orientation. in this day and age, sexual orientation should be a non-issue. don't ask don't tell is now an obsolete mechanism that was once a key factor in implementing human rights and equality in the military. we don't need it, we don't want it and those who disagree need to examine why they have such a problem with those who differ from themselves.
mr. hutcheson and those who share his opinions should be ashamed of their elitist and discriminatory behavior. these are not the kind of people i want leading my country.
Bravo, Adam! Extremely well said. I agree 100%.
well said louvra!
Post a Comment