|
Back on September 21st, the United States Senate voted to not repeal the U.S. Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding gays and lesbians serving in the Armed Forces. Many in the Conservative community hailed this result as a stand against the moral decay of this country, but I believe this is merely misinterpreting the entire issue.
The background of the policy is rooted in the Uniform Code of Military Justice - the laws governing the conduct of those enlisted in the Armed Forces of the United States. Under Article 125, "sodomy" is prohibited, whether engaged in by same or opposite sex couples. Since the definition of "sodomy," as applied by the UCMJ, covers a rather wide spectrum of sexual acts, most sexually active couples are very likely to be guilty of some violation of the Article at one time or another during their relationship.
On the surface, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" seems to extend the same "look the other way" attitude to gays and lesbians that it does to straight couples, in regards to private, consensual acts. For the politicians, it created the seemingly perfect balance of walking the fence on the issue. The candidate could claim to uphold "moral standards" by not amending the UCMJ, while at the same time, claiming to be GLBT friendly by supporting a policy that all but nullifies the regulation.
In truth, both sides of the issue should find "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" an affront. It neither makes a moral stand, nor supports the gay community.
For those holding to the traditional Judeo-Christian morality on homosexuality, DADT presents a form of tacit endorsement. To claim something as immoral, with the addendum of, "but we're not going to enforce it unless we have to," is to send the message that one's moral convictions are meaningless. While many may not think this of any real consequence in regards to Article 125, the trouble begins when it is seen as precedent. If we adopt a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding acts defined as sodomy, is it unreasonable for our enemies to wonder if we also hold the same policy regarding abuse of prisoners? We certainly wouldn't think playing "see no evil, hear no evil" is a good idea, if some of our soldiers were raping and murdering innocent civilians, would we? Of course not, but if we are happy to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to violations of one article of our UCMJ, are we that confident we won't do so to violations of other articles?
For those in the gay community, DADT presents its own set of difficulties. While gays and lesbians have been finding increasing acceptance in most communities, the military is essentially telling them to stay in the closet. You can be gay or lesbian, so long as no one in the service finds out. While the straight couple is free to enjoy base facilities and morale activities together, the same-sex couple risks inviting prosecution under the UCMJ if they show up to the unit picnic together. DADT says, "You can be gay in the Army, just so long as you keep it a secret." In reality, it's not much different than how it was before DADT. The only difference is, a commanding officer can't ask someone if they're gay.
One argument against repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is that it is the first step to changing Article 125, and permitting gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. In reality, what needs to happen is that DADT does go away, and our Government makes a decision. Either they need to enforce Article 125 of the UCMJ as written (and technically, not just on homosexual acts, but on any acts covered by the Article), or they need to revise the Article to reflect what has been the common practice regarding heterosexual couples, and apply it fairly and equally to all servicemembers.
Another challenge to revising the UCMJ is the point that homosexuality is prohibited under Biblical Law. Being intimately familiar with the Bible, I'm not going to dispute that at all. What I will point out is that the Bible is not the civil law of this land. While many of our civil laws are rooted in Biblical morality, to suggest that we should make the Bible the law of the land is the effective equal of the Muslim suggesting that we enact Sharia law in this country. The justification that would be quoted by Islam is the same as would be quoted by Christianity - both groups view their Scriptures as the very words of God, and the laws therefore derived from Divine Authority. If the Christian proposes that it would be acceptable to impose Biblical Law, then the same precedent would endorse Sharia Law under the Quran. Under the current situation, it would be a matter of one opinion against the other, of which was truly the authoritative edicts of the Almighty.
A popular argument leveled against permitting homosexuals to openly serve, is that of the "morale" and "disruption" factors in a given military unit. This is going to be an issue, whether on as large a scale as some fear or only in limited cases, and would need to be addressed. In that, though, we see some history in that similar arguments were presented against the racial integration of the military. Following World War II, when the U.S. Military began the process of desegregating the Armed Forces, many argued that mixing blacks into white units would be "disruptive," and lead to conflicts and morale problems. These problems did occur, but people tend to be remarkably adaptable. The Department of Defense didn't abandon the process, and people learned soon enough to live with it. As we have found in other areas of our society, people are getting along just fine with gays and lesbians in their schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods. The "demoralizing, disruptive" argument, therefore, is a moot point. If the argument is going to be made against gays in the military, it needs to be made on something more solid than "some people won't like it." No matter what we do, some people won't like it, so let's just throw that argument out. Doing the right thing should not be dependent on whether people like it or not, even when sides cannot agree on what constitutes "the right thing."
It's time for our government to quit dancing on both sides of the line. Make a decision - either gays and lesbians have no place serving in the military, or they can serve openly without having to hide who they are. One way or the other, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not a substitute for deciding. Congress, either enforce the UCMJ as written, or change it, but quit treating the American public like we're too stupid to know we're being played for a fool. This nonsense has gone on for much too long, and it's time to quit sidestepping the issue.
|