As the debate about the possible changes to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” occurs in the public, there seems to be some confusion about what the military can control and discipline among its troops.  For example, some (primarily those not in the military) who want to see DADT repealed seem to think the military cannot dictate personal conduct when those actions aren’t “wrong.”

Ignoring for a moment the moral judgment required to make such an assertion, the statements display a certain ignorance about military standards and conduct.  The US military has rules governing a great deal of actions by its personnel that may not be considered “wrong” in civilian society.  Throughout its history, the military has determined that certain conduct is in some form distracting or detrimental to accomplishing its mission.  Thus, the military enforces a code of conduct that is stricter than that enforced in the civilian sector.  The courts have upheld the right of the military to enforce those standards based on its unique mission.

Easy examples are weight, age, disability, and pregnancy.  While discrimination based on these factors is generally illegal in civil society, the military is permitted to–and does–discriminate on these issues.  In fact, in 2008 the US military discharged more than 2,300 people for being pregnant–a number five times greater than those discharged for being homosexual.

Somewhat more controversial examples also continue to be enforced.  For example, adultery is still punishable conduct in the military.  A push to remove that prohibition several years ago failed, in part because the military successfully argued adultery was inconsistent with the required character of someone in the military.

There are a variety of other examples of persons punished or even discharged for actions not considered “wrong” in civilian society.  Just recently a large group of Airmen was kicked out of the Air Force for using “spice”–a legally available incense the military says has effects similar to marijuana (another drug legalized in some states).  In another case, a two-star General was demoted and forced to retire for dating another woman (a civilian not associated with the government) while legally separated from his wife.

In both of those cases, conduct entirely legal by civilian standards resulted in not only punishment, but also the end of military careers.  The logic behind such punitive actions can seem perplexing to civilians (and even some in the military), but the mantra of a high standard of character and the intangible value of morale, good order, and discipline continue to be the high water marks required of personnel in the military.

The US military requires its members to adhere to a standard of conduct–a standard perhaps stricter than required outside of the military.  Just because something has been normalized in civilian society does not mean the military can or should allow it as well.

Regardless of the outcome of DADT, the US military will continue to have rules and regulations in place governing the conduct of its members that are more restrictive than what modern American societal norms condone.