Gays should be able to serve openly in the military
The current controversy surrounding the issue 
of whether or not to remove the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays and lesbians serving in the military, makes me wish we could “rewind” to the late 1940s, when World War II ended.
That’s when President Harry Truman removed the ban of racial segregation In the Armed Forces. Although I’m old enough to remember (91), I can’t recall how that seemingly drastic change was accepted by the military and others.
I hope it was unlike today’s attitude of fear and resistance toward allowing gays and lesbians to serve their country openly, and that President Obama will move quickly and decisively to eliminate the “DADT” policy. In my opinion, the current practice is as disgraceful as the segregation practices of the 1940s.
Fredda C. Clisham Ann Arbor
Comments
packman
Wed, Dec 15, 2010 : 9:45 a.m.
Here's a recent editorial from the Air Force Times. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen say repealing dont ask, dont tell, which bars open service by gay men and women, will not harm military readiness if done carefully and deliberately. Whether that happens next year or some years from now, it is increasingly apparent that the law cant survive. The military has already effectively neutralized it by barring commanders from enforcing it on their own, and at least a plurality of service members dont believe repeal would affect their units ability to complete its mission. That means the real questions now are when will repeal happen and, once it does, how will the Pentagon manage the change? There will be challenges. About 24 percent of troops say theyd quit or at least consider quitting the service if repeal happens. Still, with leaders seemingly committed, its time to figure out how to make this work with minimal disruption. That means focusing on one crucial consideration privacy. Personal privacy has never been a top military concern. In fact, privacy deprivation is among the primary tools used to break down new recruits and build them back up as a fighting unit. Yet privacy not of the one, but of the many is the key to eliminating the most immediate problems with integrating open gays into the service. No one, gay or straight, should have to feel sexually threatened by anyone else in uniform. That means giving troops a reasonable expectation that they can shower and change clothes without feeling like they are being ogled. This is not to say all gay service members would constantly be checking out their bunkmates from behind. Most would not. But the reality is that some would. Ensuring that all shower and toilet facilities include stalls with latchable doors, or at least curtains, wont resolve moral objections. But it will go a long way toward ensuring that no one feels as if his right to bodily privacy has been violated. And that, in the end, is the most essential factor in making a change in policy work.
johnnya2
Tue, Dec 14, 2010 : 5:58 p.m.
If a person says racist and bigoted comments why can;t they be called what they are? It shows just how Annarbor.com is just as bigoted when it comes to gay issues. Hide any way you want, but the fact you allow somebody to consider the gay community lessor and do not censor them, but you do censor those that call them on it, makes YOU a bigot as well.
Speechless
Tue, Dec 14, 2010 : 1:14 p.m.
What a few opponents of equality for gays in the military say in year 2010: "... When did it become morally acceptable to force a 17 year old male heterosexual into the same shower as a 31 year old male homosexual?" What an opponent of armed forces integration might have said in year 1947: "... When did it become morally acceptable to force a 17 year old white male into the same shower as a 31 year old black male?" Both of these oppositional positions evolve from a similar frame of mind. Although, from what I've read, the backlash against Truman-era integration of the military was even more intense than resistance to acceptance of gays in the last couple of decades. As a counter to Truman's domestic opponents, the governments of Western Europe demanded U.S. integration in the immediate aftermath of organized Nazi genocide. Similarities between segregation among U.S. occupation forces and the racist human categorization inside Nazi death camps were obvious to many European locals.
Shiva
Tue, Dec 14, 2010 : 8:15 a.m.
Offensive Hypocrisy It is only news when conservative Christians and religious extremists find it offensive. Yet, they believe they have the right to spew anything. When someone in politics is running for a seat, if they have anything to do with the gay community, the conservatives pull out their He is a rapist chatter, yet they want to protect the Catholic church who has a history of raping children. Until religion is no longer used as some sort of guide or measuring tool, there will always be witch trials. It is a shame that liberal ideology has given the religious community the ability to live openly. No longer do they get thrown to the lions for entertainment and no longer do Mormons or Quakers get lynched by Puritans. Some days I wish I werent a leftist-socialist, which believes all are equal, it would be much easier just to toss those conservative religious extremists (who have infiltrated the US government at all levels, the military and are rewriting history; like erasing Thomas Jefferson from the history books, even though he is the reason why we have many religions in the USA today living side by side) to the lions, and you know that is exactly what they would like to be able to do to someone like me.
David Briegel
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 10:38 p.m.
Stun, This issue has been addressed several times. They already are sharing showers and bathrooms with LIARS. And that is acceptable to you. You might want to examine and explain your "values"! Do you just like liars better than honest soldiers? The reasons you cite really don't make sense.
stunhsif
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 8:11 p.m.
Quite honestly I have no issue at all with gays serving in the military, I would simply not want to bathe and use the bathroom with an openly gay man. As Jeremy Miller said so well: "When did it become morally acceptable to force a 17 year old male heterosexual into the same shower as a 31 year old male homosexual?" Again, no problem with gays showing pictures of themselves with their gay friends on their desk at work in the barracks or wherever. The big issues for me are how it affects the cohesiveness of the group or groups in combat and also forcing a heterosexual male perhaps 18 years old to shower and toilet themselves with 40 and 50 year old openly gay men. Say all you want about their being thrown out if they misbehave but to me it is simply wrong. An 18 year old grunt could be very intimidated and taken advantage of by an older gay person, whether male or female. It is no different than forcing 18 year old females to shower and toilet themselves with adult men. If gays in the military are not open then there is no emotional distress ( for the heterosexual) unless they( the gay person) displays inappropriate behavior in the bathroom/shower.
David Briegel
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 5:33 p.m.
Jeremy, When he raised his hand and swore to defend the Constitution. And he already is sharing a shower. With a LIAR!
David Briegel
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 5:25 p.m.
A2K, The USA DOES allow gays in the military. As long as they uphold the values of LYING!! Tell the truth and you're gone!
HaeJee
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 5:04 p.m.
@stunhsif, you couldn't be more wrong. Sex is in the workplace by having photos of you, your partner, children on your desk, discussing what you did over the weekend, talking about a discussion you and your partner had, etc. These are all innocent actions that lead someone into knowing about your personal sexual preference. You probably didn't think of it, since so many who have been opposed to equal rights have taken their rights for granted. THAT is the privilege of being part of the majority. When you have to hide who you are, out of fear of losing your profession and livelihood.... it is not right. My dear friend is a highly ranked air force officer and she has shared many stories about her enlisted over the years. It is a very different world being in the military versus civilian world. She knows a lot about the personal lives of her sub-ordinates and it is her job too. It is funny how many of you that are opposed to them in having equal rights are completely okay with them in risking their hidden lives for your freedom.
A2K
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 4:25 p.m.
Aren't we the only modern, Westernized nation to NOT allow gays in the military? DADT is an evil, hurtful policy...none of the currently-active service members from my family think it should be upheld - they have ZERO issue serving with openly gay soldiers/officers etc. and say that by-and-large the great majority of enlisted feel the same way...it's just the Old Bigot's Brigade clawing onto power through fear as they can't deal with the fact that they're quickly becoming irrelevant.
Tex Treeder
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 1:15 p.m.
It amazes me that so many people are concerned who might be using the same shower or changing room. With various real problems around the globe (Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), shouldn't we concentrate on those instead?
Jeremy
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 12:24 p.m.
When did it become morally acceptable to force a 17 year old male heterosexual into the same shower as a 31 year old male homosexual?
Peter Baker
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 10:23 a.m.
"If God doesnt accept their lifestyle, why should the military?" I'm not sure God would really approve of the military either.
Will Warner
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 9:54 a.m.
The underlying issue here, as with same-sex marriage, is sexual taboo. It doesnt help to keep using the word "bigot" to describe people who have internalized Western civilization's sexual taboos. What is taboo? 1. Sex between a man and his mother (even if one of them is infertile) 2. Sex between a man and his sister (even if one of them is infertile) 3. Sex between a man and is daughter (even if one of them is infertile) 4. Sex between men or between women Number 4 has changing, but socialization is powerful thing. A common argument is that restrictions on gays-in-the-military and denial of same-sex marriage are no-brainer violations of equal protection. What are the implications of this line of reasoning? Most countries enshrine their taboos in law. Such laws will have disparate impact on groups of people only people wishing to violate a taboo are burdened by the laws. In America, when a law has disparate impact, the government can be made to show that a legitimate State interest is served by it. If it cannot, the law is voided. This possibly is occurring for taboo 4. My observation is that if the equal-protection argument applies to taboos, it applies to all of them. If there are no grounds for denying a marriage license to two men, there are no grounds for doing so if they are brothers, and yet all States that permit two men to marry don't permit it if they are brothers. What legitimate State interest is served by this prohibition? My point is that if you can talk society out of its taboo against homosexuality, fine, but the equal-protection argument may take you where you don't want to go.
scoobysnacks
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 8:43 a.m.
So which shower would an openly gay person use? Not the one I'm using! I have many friends and family members who were in the military and NONE OF THEM support having open gays serve. If a fellow soldier is gay, they dont want to know about it. If God doesnt accept their lifestyle, why should the military?
DFSmith
Mon, Dec 13, 2010 : 1:38 a.m.
Remember that we currently are dealing with the problems caused by Private Bradley Manning, who has publicly stated that he engaged in acts of treason because he is gay. Do we want more like him in our military?
Tex Treeder
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 10:35 p.m.
robyn wrote: "Combat units need to be very cohesive. Unfortunately (this comes from discussion with people IN those units - homosexuality is detrimental to the cohesiveness in those types of units when they are in a combat environment." This is a common, fear-mongering argument. It is also factually incorrect. See, for example, the recent study released by the Department of Defense. I have commanded troops in a combat environment. I have served in the military for more than 20 years. In my opinion, unit cohesion is not reliant on excluding homosexuals. Unit cohesion relies on honesty, integrity, leadership and the knowledge that you can rely on your fellow soldier. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with that. How we treat people with different sexual orientation does.
David Briegel
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 7:42 p.m.
When I served (a while ago) there were several gays and everyone knew who they were, they were accepted. They weren't interested in you if you weren't interested in them. Who wants that rejection? In my two years in Alaska there wasn't one single "incident" and the barracks were pretty close quarters and the duty was remote and lonely. Not one taker who would rather serve with a liar than an honest soldier! This is all about OUR "values". This has nothing to do with ancient Greeks. Other nations don't seem to have any "problems". As Ghost says, why is it acceptable to violate our Constitution for this group of citizens?
robyn
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 7:21 p.m.
I don't think that it's the idea that gay do't or can't do their jobs under extreme pressure. Whether someone can or canot' perform their job under such conditions has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality - it's more about the fortitude of the individual and their own psychological make-up. When I was in the service I met quite a few people that were gay. As a female - and in close quarters with other women (living arrangements on post put unmarried personnel in barracks according to sex) - I was living with lesbians. It never occurred to me that they couldn't do their jobs. The only time it ever bothered me - and it would not have made a difference if the gal was lesbian or straight - was when I was roomed with a woman that brought her 'girlfriend' into our dorm room and they'd be all up in each others faces. I didn't like it when I was in college and my roomie brought her BF in and they were 'busy' while I was trying to study. As far as what the guys in a combat unit think - I have seen studies also - they do NOT specifically address combat units. There is a whole different mindset in those units. My BIL has served in a non-front unit and a front line combat unit and he says it's different. He has served in Kuwait, Iraq twice and Afghanistan. He is home and finishing college and will go back in a year. The relationships in the units are very different and there can be a lot of stress between people in the unit that isn't there in non-combat units. The interactions between the soldiers can be very 'raw' but they are also extremely 'tight' because they have to depend upon each other for their lives. One man being set aside or ostricized is a weak link in the unit. One weak link can mean another's life or worse the lives of several or a lot of the unit. It doesn't just mean a homosexual 'brother' - it could be a brother they don't have confidence in or who just doesn't 'fit' with the unit. I have heard this on many occasions in speaking with many that have served. I realize it's difficult for someone who has never been in that type of position to understand that type of thinking - but what they experience is far different than what most of us - even those of us that have served - will ever understand.
packman
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 6:58 p.m.
One or two of the service chiefs oppose repeal of DADT at this time. The JCS Chair, Admiral Mullen (US Navy) seems to favor repeal. Why doesn't some suggest that the repeal be tried in the Navy for a year or so? That way, we might be able to see what the unintended consquences might be without subjecting the entire DoD to those consequences.
SMAIVE
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 4:50 p.m.
Please we're asking an instituition to change that can't even protect women within it's own ranks. It's less having to do with cohesiveness and more with being ignorant and scared of their own emotions and actions.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 3:23 p.m.
I understand the argument in favor of DADT: the military, under pressure, presents such extreme conditions that extraordinary measures must be taken to preserve a combat mindset. Simple professionalism. However, the implication is that gay people, under extreme pressure, cannot do their jobs because they are sex-obsessed. Is there any evidence this is true? The military must also be consistent if it wants this unusual exemption from civil rights law. Barracks are notorious for hazing. Shouldn't there be zero tolerance for hazing of any kind to maintain professionalism? Existing regulations cover this. Two men having a sexual relationship during training or combat are subject to the same discipline that a man and a woman would. A gay man expressing sexual arousal in the shower will be disciplined for harassment. There also isn't any example where allowing a gay person to serve has caused a significant problem. We've had two major cases where Muslims in the military have chosen faith over country and killed several people. But Muslims can still serve. DADT seems like simple discrimination more than sensible policy.
bedrog
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 1:36 p.m.
I appreciate robyn's mention ( although we're on different sides of the DADT issue) of the'sacred band ' of ancient thebes as an example of how gays were hardly a detriment to military effectiveness (...and their destruction by alexander the great was accomplished by his lover/commander hephastion)...but never mind that. Our current chief foe...the taliban...although publically repudiating homsexuality in theory revels in it in practice, as does their larger Pashtun culture, in Pashtu adages ( reported by the likes of sir olaf caroe, the last of the british administrators of the northwest frontier and john masters,a british officer in the region pre-partition ): " there's a boy across the river with a bottom like a peach, but alas i cannot swim" or " a woman for business; a boy for pleasure; a goat for necessity" my own research in the general region confirms this notion as well. Likewise T.E Lawrence ( Lawrence of arabia) remarked on same vis a vis his bedouin guerilla army...no slouches in the warfare department. Homosexuality is obviously no big detriment to fighting efficiency and DADT should be scrapped.
bobr
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 12:37 p.m.
Gays will be openly serving in the military shortly but not this year. The real issue is whether or not the Democrats will get it done, and that's increasingly doubtful. Obama missed his best chance when he had the Attorney General appeal the federal judge that ruled it was unconstitutional. All he had to do was say his hands were tied, not appeal, and order the military to comply. What's every bit as likely is that after a lot of fuss to placate their 'base' it may be done by the Republicans after Jan. 1. They can claim they were forced into it which keeps their 'base' satisfied and it gets done which might get them a larger share both of the gay vote and the vote of people that realize this is overdue.
liekkio
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 12:22 p.m.
stunhsif, you say: "Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Heterosexual men, most of them would have a problem bathing with homosexual men" If we consider these facts of life to be problems, how exactly does DADT cure problem 1, or prevent problem 2 from happening? Currently homosexuals do serve in the army, are attracted to persons of same sex, and they do bathe together. The sky is not falling now, but will fall if someone exits the closet? Why?
chuck
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 12:17 p.m.
Gays are allowed to openly serve in the military, they just aren't allowed to be openly gay and serve in the military.
nuseph
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 12:08 p.m.
"sex should stay out of the workplace especially in the military." Agreed. So let's ban all military from ever talking about their wives, girlfriends, husbands and boyfriends, keeping pictures of them by their bunks, etc. I'm sure that will make all our military a much happier and more productive force.
robyn
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 12:05 p.m.
The "Don't ask. Don't tell." policy simply means the military will NOT ask person if they are homosexual. At one time they did ask and admitting to it meant that the person will not be eligible to serve. I don't know of too many (or any for that matter) employers that would or are legally allowed to ask about sexual preference as part of the hiring process. The military should be no different. One thing that many people don't really think about - possible becauyse they are not in the military or if they were - they did not serve in a combat unit. I was in - obviously not in a combat unit. I have many friends and some family members that have served - some still do - in combat units. Combat units need to be very cohesive. Unfortunately (this comes from discussion with people IN those units - homosexuality is detrimental to the cohesiveness in those types of units when they are in a combat environment. Those who arge against this being true have never served in a small a small unit like that so they ahev no idea what it is like for those who are in that in a unit like that. While a lot of people will probably not like hearing/reading this - that does not make it any less true. The people in these units are living and working in uncomfortably close proximity to one another as it is, homosexuality, despite the liberal push to "normalize" it, is not seen as "normal" by most people. It's just how it is. Now before someone jumps on the word "normal" - it simply means what it means - as in not being the standard for most people. The are more hetrosexuals than homosexuals - hetrosexuals greatly outnumber homosexuals. (There are more children born with autism - also not 'normal' - than children born homosexual. This does not imply a person who is not of the societal "norm" is unacceptable - is simply implies that they are different.) We've spoken on this topic at great length - and while those in non-combat units are not - for the most part - against gays/lesbians serving, those in combat units are not for it in THEIR environment. Which always brought us to the topic of ancient Greek armies - that were homoerotic/homosexual. With the "Scared Band", the idea was that couple would fight harder as not to be shamed in front of their lovers. To my knowledge, and I accept correction, it was never repeated after its destruction by Alexander. While greatly debated - some saying this was true and others denying that homosexuality was part of the Greek (and Macedonian) military. I do think that those who firmly oppose it in any way do so for personal reasons. So go figure? Part of the Greek society was that homosexuality was pretty open and part of the 'norm' - especially in higher society. But our society has values that are quite different than those of the ancient Greeks.
David Briegel
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 12:03 p.m.
The whole point about showers and sleeping arrangements is so weak for one simple fact. They already do. But don't let facts get in the way of the big LIE! And therefore we need do nothing different. And please answer the question as to why you would rather serve with a LIAR than an honest person? Values?
Soothslayer
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 11:59 a.m.
I don't understand why as a society we're still dwelling on this. Most certainly these will be referred to the dark ages of the new millennium.
Top Cat
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 11:33 a.m.
This is not a workplace issue or a fairness issue. The purpose of our military is to defend us. The sole question is what policy promotes our national defense and makes us safer. If the Joint Chiefs were not under political pressure and could speak honestly, I wonder what they would say. I truly do not know the answer to the question.
simone66
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 11:31 a.m.
@stunhsif "The argument is not weak at all. Assuming you are a woman by your name. Let me ask you this question. You are in the military and have to bathe with herterosexual men, no problem right? They are after all professionals. Being a professional has nothing to do with it. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Heterosexual men, most of them would have a problem bathing with homosexual men. Doesn't matter if they come onto you or not. Otherwise, you Simone66 should have no problem bathing with heterosexual men as long as they don't come onto you. There is no arguing this point, it cannot be done." Your point still has no validity, and don't waste your time assuming what I would think in your absurd scenario. For the simple reason that you cannot compare the usage of separate facilities used by men and women for centuries. However, with modifications, I'm sure such situations have occured. Who says that men and women have to shower at the same 'time' - but they can use one facility. But I digress... you appear to just don't want gays in the military because you discriminate against them and use a weak argument about showers and the fact that gays are attracted to the same sex. Just because another male is in the presence of a gay man does not mean that the gay male is automatically turned on by the other man. That thought is ludicrous... just like how a heterosexual male is NOT attracted to every female he spots. I'm just hopeful that this discrimination ends in due time, I do realize that many people have significant issues with it, but they will have to get over it like how racists thought non-whites could not serve in the military. The time will come. BTW, I was in the Navy briefly and know the career damage this discriminatory policy does on people who just want to serve for their country.
stunhsif
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 11:03 a.m.
Simone66 said: "The arguments about shared sleeping quarters and showers is weak, these men and women are professional just like their heterosexual counterparts and deserve to have this unfair ban lifted so they can openly and proudly serve their country." The argument is not weak at all. Assuming you are a woman by your name. Let me ask you this question. You are in the military and have to bathe with herterosexual men, no problem right? They are after all professionals. Being a professional has nothing to do with it. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Heterosexual men, most of them would have a problem bathing with homosexual men. Doesn't matter if they come onto you or not. Otherwise, you Simone66 should have no problem bathing with heterosexual men as long as they don't come onto you. There is no arguing this point, it cannot be done.
simone66
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 10:18 a.m.
It is a significant commentary on the maturity, level of respect, and lack of compassion that the military, government, and those who harbor bigotry against homosexuals, which prevent them from being out and open while serving their country. Why is it that as 2011 approaches, it is still ok to legally and actively DISCRIMINATE against this group of Americans? Now more than ever when all units of the military need qualified men and women to serve and protect our country, there is a BAN that prevents someone from joining the military because they are gay and truthful about it. The arguments about shared sleeping quarters and showers is weak, these men and women are professional just like their heterosexual counterparts and deserve to have this unfair ban lifted so they can openly and proudly serve their country.
stunhsif
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 10 a.m.
As BasicBob said, sex should stay out of the workplace especially in the military where folks have to sit in foxholes, go to the bathroom together and get naked together to bathe. No stereotypes, no religious dogma and no paranoia at all. If gays can be open in the military then we need to allow men and women to bathe together in the military as well.
Urban Sombrero
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 9:56 a.m.
Why should this be an issue? Still? It's ridiculous! Why in the world does it matter if someone's gay? Why? I just don't get it. Why should soldiers not be allowed to discuss their sexuality? It's OK for one to talk about their wife/husband. Why in the world is it not OK for a gay soldier to be open about their partner? This is a stupid and archaic law and I'm embarrassed of our country that it's still an issue. Look, folks, if you have a problem with gays, that says way more about you than it does about the gay community. I'll just leave it at that.
David Briegel
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 9:54 a.m.
Fredda, you are so right! If a soldier clicks his heels, salutes and tells a lie, he can serve. If a soldier clicks his heels, salutes and tells the truth, he is discharged! Is that because America respects liars? Heardoc, Imagine, militancy in the military! I believe discrimination is the problem. I can remember when discrimination was not acceptable. But then, those were saner times! When bigtry was unacceptable!
Basic Bob
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 9:30 a.m.
If there were segregated gay units I could see your analogy. Let's think of it as a workplace. Sex should be a private matter which is not discussed (or done) at work, regardless of whether you are straight or gay.
Heardoc
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 9:20 a.m.
Just because one is homosexual does not mean that we all should know that you are homosexual. Militancy in the homosexual community is far more a problem now than in the past. This should be monitored closely -- much like PETA -- these radical groups tend to be outside the mainstream.
stunhsif
Sun, Dec 12, 2010 : 8:47 a.m.
I could not disagree more Fredda. DADT is fair and resaonable for all. There are many reasons for it and all of them make sense.