General Says Repeal May Cost Lives, Congress Repeals DADT
Commandant of the Marine Corps and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Amos has been widely reported to have said the repeal of DADT would cause “distractions” that could “cost Marine lives.”
Amos was widely criticized, with some even calling for his resignation for being “out of step with his own bosses.” Apparently critics failed to realize its the responsibility of the Chiefs of Staff to provide such advice to the President. It is not their job to be “yes men.” Interestingly, there was speculation Amos had been chosen by Obama for both his pensive reservation and for his views on DADT (both of which seem to have been proven contrary to perception).
Still, Amos specifically said civilian leadership of the military in the US would be respected.
This weekend, Congress voted to repeal the law banning homosexuals from serving in the military.
Distractions? What distractions would there be? And again, why would American troops be subject to those distractions and not Israeli troops?
My understanding of the DADT policy is that it merely bars military people from being asked about their sexuality. So it protected homosexuals who wished to serve, as they could no longer be asked.
It was put into place after it became a federal law that, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” (Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code -1993)
Which was put into place after the DOD issued a policy in 1982 saying pretty much the same thing.
The 1982 policy was issued in response to the homosexual rights movement that was attacking the 1950 UMCJ policies and procedures for discharging homosexuals (as homosexual sex is against the military’s moral code of ethics.)
And before that, being homosexual was considered a psychiatric problem, barring service.
My first point of confusion is that some articles I’ve read say that it was Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code that was repealed, but most just say DADT was repealed. None of them talk about the DOD policy or the UMCJ policy baring homosexual sex.
So did congress pass a bill merely repealing Section 654 or did they pass a bill that also said that the presence of homosexuals will not be a problem and that homosexuality, or homosexual acts, is not a grounds for discharge? Or are we simply back to when recruiters could ask a recruit their sexual preference and turn down the homosexuals? Or are homosexuals allowed in the military, as long as they don’t have sex?
I’m just confused. If you could help clarify, it would be greatly appreciated.
The bill passed by Congress this past weekend only changed Title X to remove the ban on homosexuals in military service if “all requirements and certifications are met.” If not, the ban remains law.
However, since “requirements and certifications” are required to be made by those who have already said they support homosexuals in the military, the certification is largely considered to be a formality.
Congress did not change military regulations (the “DADT” part) because they are controlled by the executive branch of government. However, they have, again, already expressed support for repeal. According to the bill, these “policies and regulations” need to be worked out before “certification.”
The bill did not change the UCMJ (though that has been discussed), but it is unlikely people would be prosecuted under the UCMJ for something explicitly supported by Congress and the military leadership.
You can see the text of Lieberman’s bill here.
There are over a hundred retired generals and admirals (whose views on these things are purely theirs and those of the adminstration) who stated DADT should be repealed. The fact is, they recognized that releaing men and women who wish to serve our nation is not good policy.
If you want to make it about numbers, there are more than 1100 “generals and admirals” who stated the opposite.
Donalbain,
Before you argue that since there are homosexuals in the military already, then all of these distractions are already there, too, please keep in mind 2 things:
– Denial is a very powerful thing (just ask any parent if their kid is doing drugs or has an eating disorder). If someone really doesn’t want there to be any gay people in their unit, as far as they are concerned, there aren’t.
-Under DADT, being outed as a homosexual is a career killer. So you can be darn sure that any homosexuals in the military have been quite careful about who they flirt with within the military.
Some Distractions:
-More sexual tension.
You make men and women work together, you’re gonna get sexual tension. This doesn’t mean that every man in sexually attracted to every woman (and vice versa) with whom they work. But some will. Take the situation of men working with women (assumed heterosexuals) and add in 2 more sexual identities. There will be more sexual tension. This, again, does not mean that every man in sexually attracted to every woman (and vice versa) or every homosexual is attracted to everyone of their gender with whom they work. But again, some will.
-Flirting, and the potentially violent reaction.
Again, not every homosexual is attracted to every person of their gender, or even many. But all it takes is an attraction to one heterosexual to potentially start a fight. As personal experience has taught me, there are some people in world (both genders, all sexual preferences) who have a hard time believing that the person they are flirting with is not digging it. Have you ever been informed by someone that you didn’t like that, “You know you like it” in reference to their unwanted flirting? A more violent reaction from unwanted flirting from people of the same gender tends to be from males (about 80% of the US military is male). This may be because they see it as an attack on their masculinity or males just aren’t as used to unwanted flirts as women.
Also, if there are supposedly no homosexuals in the military, then you are guaranteed not to be flirted with in the shower, in a locker room, or while getting dressed for the day. It is quite foolish to say that no homosexuals check anyone else out in these situations. Hence men and women shower separately.
-What rule do you enforce?
In US society there is no clear notion of what is and is not harassment of a homosexual. So a guy reacts poorly to an unwanted come-on. For this example, let’s just say there’s a small scuffle, maybe a bloody nose or two. So there was a fight. Are both people in trouble, or just the guy with the poor reaction. Is he in trouble just for fighting or on a level of hate crime against a homosexual? (as of 2009, homosexuality is protected under the hate crimes law.) Or is they gay guy in trouble for stating it via flirting? Will he be in trouble for sexual harassment?
-It’s one more thing that service members can’t talk about.
As it is, members of the military have to watch what they say, or to whom they say it, in reference to bad mouthing superiors or the President. Not being allowed to voice opposition to the homosexual lifestyle is one of the larger fears of Chaplains, as has been discussed on this website. There is also a history of homosexuals suing when they feel they have been discriminated against (real or perceived discrimination). Whether it be a wedding photographer who declined a job photographing a gay wedding (lost in court, having to pay for a portion of the wedding) or a pastor who faced jail time for a sermon on Leviticus. (By the way, it isn’t only religious people against homosexuality. There are still people who view it as a chosen way of life or as a result of abuse, a psychological disorder.)
-General polarization of the troops.
In 1993, retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I have experienced the fact that the introduction of an open homosexual into a small unit immediately polarizes that unit and destroys the very bonding that is so important for the unit’s survival in time of war.” Okay, so that was over a decade ago, but it makes sense that this would have a polarizing affect. You’d have the group that are for homosexuality, the group mildly uncomfortable with it, the group against it, and the people without a group who just don’t care. I don’t think cliques are great for unit cohesion.
-Other side trails that need to be addressed:
What about gay marriage spousal rights? (If they’re stationed in Massachusetts, MA recognizes it, but then again, DOMA has not been repealed so the federal government does not… so does the military?) If the gay couple is legally married, will it affect base housing communities with small children, who perhaps are deemed too young by their parents for an explanation of the homosexual lifestyle? What about cross-dressing? (Can a woman wear pants in dress uniform? Can a man wear a skirt?) What about trans-gendered people?
The US and Israel are two very different countries with very different cultures. Their militaries are also not the same. For starters, American troops, unlike Israelis, are often deployed for long periods of time, thousands of miles from home. And Israel has mandatory military service for both men and women, whereas the US has a volunteer military. Also there is the sheer size difference between the two (the reason put forth by the TSA on why US airport security can’t possibly be modeled after that of Israel).
Pingback: God and Country » Marine Commandant Pleased with DADT Repeal Implementation