Don’t rush “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal
CommentsI have a piece in today’s Buffalo News on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that’s scheduled for Monday’s Philadelphia Daily News in a slightly different version. A shorter piece appears as a letter to the editor in the International Herald Tribune. An excerpt:
While gays and lesbians are clearly capable of heroic service, heroism is not enough to merit serving in the military, which is a privilege, not a right. The military has legitimate concerns about unit cohesion, morale, good order and discipline that it must explore thoroughly before introducing openly gay individuals into our troops.
But there is another way. I propose that Congress repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for non-combat jobs immediately, and then consider extending the change to combat positions in five years, after the initial repeal has been tested….
Indeed, the push to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is just one manifestation of what I like to call Equality Mania, the attitude by gays and lesbians that nothing is more important than complete and total equality — not the welfare of children, not religious freedom, not even national security.
But equality isn’t everything. There is literally nothing more important than a strong military. While I’m sympathetic to gays and lesbians who want to serve their country, Obama and Gates are right that we have to be very careful before making a change that can hurt the only mission to fight and win wars.
Funny that the UK and Israel haven’t had a problem with gay people in the military.
TRiG.
DB: “While gays and lesbians are clearly capable of heroic service, heroism is not enough to merit serving in the military, which is a privilege, not a right.”
Yes and no. Since serving in the military is a job that some people find highly desirable (because getting shot at wouldn’t normally be that attractive but the government has gone to some lengths to make it so), it becomes one of those due process issues, where the burden of proof is on the government to show why people should be excluded. And the burden of proof wouldn’t normally be particularly high except for the historical record of irrational animus toward gay people. So when you say, “The military has legitimate concerns about unit cohesion, morale, good order and discipline that it must explore thoroughly before introducing openly gay individuals into our troops.”, I invite the readers to roll their eyes and chuckle sardonically. As in, what TRiG said.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. There’s “literally nothing more important than a strong military”? What’s the context here? Like, nothing more important in the whole world?