Servicemembers United received the following emailed comment in response to our news story about the 28 generals and admirals stepping forward in November, 2007 to call for repeal of the DADT law. I will provide a response in my next blog posting. In the meantime, readers should feel fee to leave their own responses to the CDR Johnson's position in the comments section of this blog posting. --Alex
I disagree with the premise of the 28 generals’recent letter, but agree the military’s "policy", often called Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), should be dropped.
In the 1993 law that bars homosexuals from serving, Congress noted that the military lifestyle is not compatible with a homosexual one. Imagine living on a warship where 100 or more may sleep in one open room for months at a time at sea with people not of their own choosing. Most members of Congress are fairly well educated. President Clinton signed it into law and he was a Rhodes Scholar.
DADT is not really the law but a Department of Defense “policy” created under President Bill Clinton generally barring the asking of one’s sexual orientation as part of the recruiting process or while on active duty. The 1993 law allows DADT, but it also allows the Secretary of Defense – at any time – to drop the policy and go back to asking one’s sexual orientation without restriction. It is sort of crazy to have a law that bars gays from the military but not being able to ask about it during the recruiting process.
If the DADT policy was dropped as the generals recommend, honest homosexuals would be barred from enlisting per the law. I believe the DADT policy should be dropped so we can prevent gays from enlisting in the first place as required by the law. That will save training money that is spent on homosexuals who are later discharged. Gays will always be in the military; they will just have to go back to lying to join.
If we are going to change the current law, we need to go all the way. The new law should specify that the military will no longer consider sexual orientation or gender in recruiting, shower and toilet facilities, and sleeping quarters. All facilities would be orientation and gender neutral; in other words, coed.
Imagine if your child or spouse were subject to living under the above described conditions with people not of their own choosing for months at a time. Right now many in the public are not concerned about this since our military is all volunteer, but one day we could have a draft again.
My proposed law change is the logical and fair thing to do for both homosexual and heterosexual personnel. It is supported by the reasoning being used to repeal the current 1993 law: that sexual orientation in a military environment is irrelevant and the military is no different than civilian society - exactly the opposite of what the vast majority of Congress held in 1993. I wonder how much of the 1993 Congress is still in Congress and how they voted in 1993? Maybe someone can print a list up and publish it.
There is one form of discrimination that no one has made note of that I am aware of. Under a 1986 Federal law, the military must keep HIV positive personnel, mostly male homosexuals, until their health makes them too ill to work. Only then they are medically discharged with full benefits. With modern medicine they may stay in the military for decades. These same people are barred from serving overseas or on ships and only serve in the United States. Thus HIV negative personnel have to serve more often overseas and in harms way. Any other condition that has this effect on military readiness results in discharge. Congress should consider legislation to either: 1. Allow HIV positive personnel to serve anywhere or 2. Require that all HIV personnel be immediately medically discharged.
I would gladly participate in a debate but I know from experience at Tulane Univ. and other places that gay rights supporters do not like to debate people with views contrary to their own. They consider contrary points of view as hate speech and use that as an excuse not to debate. This is spelled out in gay activists’ organizing materials when it comes to recruiters coming to college campuses. Their real reason is they know their reasoning would not stand up to a logical and spirited (no name calling) debate. I would recommend any debate be conducted in the enlisted berthing compartment on a Navy ship so all in attendance and viewing the debate will have a sense what military life is like.
CDR Wayne L. Johnson, JAGC, Navy (Retired), Alexandria, VA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
CDR Johnson:
In the 1993 law that bars homosexuals from serving, Congress noted that the military lifestyle is not compatible with a homosexual one.
A 'finding' which has been shown to be without merit for at least 3 reasons:
1. Every major study sponsored by DoD since the 1950s (yes, I said 1950s) has found this claim to be without merit.
2. Just about every major ally of the United States from Australia to Israel to the U.K. since 1993have compiled quite a record showing this 'finding' to be without merit.
3. DoD's own actions in sharply reducing the number of discharges under DADT when unit cohesion is put to its greatest test: combat.
Most members of Congress are fairly well educated. President Clinton signed it into law and he was a Rhodes Scholar.
Most politicians care more for getting re-elected than anything else. Pandering for votes is not limited to any particular political party. Clinton signed the bill because he was a spineless politician who refused to expend the political capital to get this through. DADT was only one area in which he "forgot" his stated principles. I wonder, sir, whether you'll have the same view of Congress and whomever the president is when DADT is finally repealed?
It is sort of crazy to have a law that bars gays from the military but not being able to ask about it during the recruiting process.
Agreed, which is one reason I believe DADT should be repealed.
If the DADT policy was dropped as the generals recommend, honest homosexuals would be barred from enlisting per the law.
You assume too much. I enlisted prior to the DADT policy and honestly answered "no" when asked. I was a virgin at the time and given what was taught about homosexuality back then, especially in the South where I grew up, homosexuality was a myth. A choice one supposedly made and feelings to overcome. I obviously didn't want to make that 'choice'. Much to my dismay though, such nonsense was proven to be false. Restoring the pre-DADT ban will not remove homosexuals from the military nor make this issue go away.
Gays will always be in the military; they will just have to go back to lying to join.
Again, you assume too much. I didn't lie nor do I believe many others do.
Right now many in the public are not concerned about this since our military is all volunteer, but one day we could have a draft again.
That is something they will have to accept just like those drafted during Vietnam, for example, had no choice about desegregation. Unless we find ourselves in another WWII-type war, I doubt we'll see a draft anytime soon. No politician of either party seriously wants one given how quickly this would cost them their reelection. Well, no politician who is serious about reinstating the draft instead of using the idea to score cheap political points against their opponents (*cough* Rangel *cough*).
There is one form of discrimination that no one has made note of that I am aware of. Under a 1986 Federal law, the military must keep HIV positive personnel, mostly male homosexuals, until their health makes them too ill to work.
Why do you assert the majority of such personnel are "male homosexuals"? Do you have something credible to sustain such a claim or is this just an assumption? I'm not certain what the best course would be in this area. If they present no serious danger to their fellow servicemembers and their commands want to retain them, I'm okay with it.
This is spelled out in gay activists’ organizing materials when it comes to recruiters coming to college campuses.
Once more you assume too much, sir. Homosexuality does not dictate one's moral or political beliefs. These activists you speak of do not represent me or any other gay veteran I know of in seeking to bar military recruiters from college campuses. I wholeheartedly support the Solomon Amendment and reject the reasoning of its opponents. Activism is right and proper in dealing with Congress who passed this law, not with the military who is bound to carry it out.
Their real reason is they know their reasoning would not stand up to a logical and spirited (no name calling) debate.
Um...Commander, are you aware of what Servicemembers United does? This group has had no problem debating this in very conservative forums and will do so again when a good opportunity arises.
[Note: Forgive the second posting; the original post was rife with spacing issues]
Sir,
I would first have to find your comparison to HIV a bit irrelevant, the only connection being the mostly false connection to modern HIV/AIDS and homosexuality in the first place.
If DADT is to be debated
rationally and realistically, we must cut out the distractions and debate the true issue, that being whether or not open homosexuality would be detrimental to military service.
You are correct in stating the flaws of the law and the policy, and lack of true implementation of either has of course contributed in the confusion as to such aspects of the policy as what can be considered submissible evidence.
However, a flawed law and policy demands a re-examination of the necessity of the law, not a reversion to past policy that had already been deemed outdated by the mere fact that it is past policy.
That said, I would absolutely love to debate this with you publically, sir, and I feel very confident that I can address any argument for not allowing gays to serve quite competantly.
Let's do this.
Well, CDR Johnson, you are entitled to your opinion. However, I ask you this question: would the Army want a superior Arabic linguist with extensive cultural knowledge and operational experience who happens to be gay? Last week, I talked with the chief under whom I served in Iraq and knew I was openly gay, and he said he wants me back.
I also challenge you to a public debate.
God Bless you and keep you safe. Thank you so much for your service to our country.
Hugs,
Mike Serio
PO Box 431
Westminster, Maryland 21158
Post a Comment