GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE

Gays in the military is in the news at the start of a Democratic president’s term again. Fox news had a headline “Obama to End Military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy” which is pretty silly since Obama doesn’t have that power; Congress has to change the policy since Congress passed it. I wrote an opinion piece last September about what I feel about this subject, although I didn’t find a home for it. I thought maybe GaysDefendMarriage readers would like to see the relevant part of it. To be clear, I would like to see gays and lesbians serving openly in the armed forces, but only when the experts determine it won’t undermine the military mission:

The U.S. military exists to fight and win wars. Period. Yet in the last 40 years, various groups in society have tried to use the armed services to further their social agenda. Given that our very freedom could be at stake, the military should have no tolerance for decisions about its personnel that focus on anything but the military mission. The two most significant examples are gays and affirmative action in the military.

In my mind, the problem with gays in the military is not homosexuality but the smooth functioning of the armed forces. I know that most of the gay community (a group I’m a part of) believes that nothing is more important than equality for gays and lesbians. But the people we fought in World War II and the people we’re fighting now have far harsher plans for gays should they win a total victory than simply not allowing them to be open in uniform.

The notion that everyone should be able to serve, no matter what the social attitudes of the rank and file and the military brass, becomes silly when considered historically. Should women have been able to serve equally during the American Revolution? What about blacks (remember Glory?) serving equally in the Union army in the Civil War? In those cases, social engineering in the military would have impaired morale, unit cohesion, and the military mission. In the case of the Civil War, a Union victory was more important to freed slaves than being integrated and serving in the main ranks.

I have spoken to gays and lesbians who have said gays should have been allowed to serve openly during World War II. Given the attitudes at the time, that would have made it harder to successfully win the war effort, and I don’t have to tell gay men what the Nazis thought of them.

I discussed this issue with a scholar of issues relating to gays in the military, Dr. Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center at the University of California-Santa Barbara. He cited historical evidence that some gays did serve openly in World War II, and said “I don’t think there’s any evidence that the policy even as far back as World War II was necessary to preserve cohesion. The question has always been, will leadership stand behind integration or not?”

I personally have a hard time believing that even the best leadership could lead to unit cohesion at certain stages in history.

Contrary to popular opinion, President Truman’s 1948 order to desegregate the military did not, in fact, desegregate the military. It took the contingencies of the Korean War a few years later, and military leaders like Gen. Matthew Ridgway finding efficiency, logistical, and morale problems in a segregated military. Due to such circumstances, the military was completely integrated by the end of the fighting in 1953.

So the questions are, when is social progress sufficient for integration, and who gets to decide? I don’t know the answer to the former question, but the answer to the latter is Congress and the president, in consultation with military leaders. I hope they decide to end “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” but only when they think such a move won’t hinder our ability to win on the battlefield….

I believe that employment equality – including for African-Americans and gays and lesbians – is a good thing. It’s just that there are other goals that are equally important or more important. Surely, fighting and winning wars is one of those goals.