Homosexuals in the U.S. military - Research Paper Example

DONT ASK, DONT TELL Throughout human history, homosexuals have had a difficult time. They have often been discriminated against. Sometimes this discrimination has meant they have been denied benefits such as jobs and housing, and sometimes it has been much worse. For many years, homosexuals were often subject to violent attack and ostracism. This led many to deny or hide their sexual identity in the hopes of escaping these forms of discrimination. In recent years, laws have been changed and social attitudes have evolved. It is no longer nearly as hard to be gay in many countries in the western world. Homosexuals have risen to positions of power in the business, political, and artistic community, and discrimination has been dramatically reduced. In this respect, their civil rights battle and their victories have in some ways paralleled those of African-Americans. One of the biggest issues relating to their civil rights has been the American armys policy of Dont Ask, Dont Tell. This policy denies homosexuals the right to serve openly in the military. It is currently the subject of review and of much controversy on Capitol Hill. Generally speaking, Democrats, including President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid would like to repeal this policy. On the other side, the Republicans would like to keep it or review it completely. The recent results of the mid-term election have complicated this issue somewhat. At first it was expected that the policy would be repealed by the end of the year, as President Obama had promised. Now it appears that it will continue for some time. The issue has wound through the courts and is currently be appealed. Dont Ask, Dont Tell (DADT) will be explored in this essay. The structure of the paper is as follows: the background of the topic will be explored, the conflicting policy positions will be examined, the proposals origins will be considered, predictions relating to the chance of the proposal enactment will be discussed, and finally a conclusion will be offered. This policy was originally put in place by Bill Clinton in 1993. It was officially Defense Directive 1304.26 (Carter, 23). It caused him a lot of problems at the time and has never been free of controversy. He campaigned on the promise to allow gays to serve openly and tried to pass this into law. What he got instead was a compromise that left almost everyone unhappy. Congress—including conservative Democrats—blocked Clintons plan to let everyone serve openly (Carter, 48). People on the left have always thought it was a bad decision and discriminatory against homosexuals who wanted to serve their country in the armed services. People on the right have been concerned that it might affect battle-readiness and that soldiers might be opposed to it. President Obama and many modern-day Democrats currently oppose DADT and would like to see it repealed. Earlier this year, Obama ordered a review of the policy. Many of the leading members of the American Armed Force support the repeal, including several Republicans, most notably Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and many members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Washington Post). Nevertheless, the policy has not been repealed. There are opponents in Congress. According to President Obama, Congress should change the law. In October, a federal judge ruled the policy was unconstitutional. The Department of Justice appealed this ruling, which many people thought was strange since Obama opposed the policy too and thought it was discriminatory. In 2010, the attempt at repealing DADT began with the introduction of the Murphy amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. This amendment was introduced by a Democrat named Patrick Murphy from Pennsylvania (Carpenter). This passed in the House. However, it was filibustered in the Senate. The two sides of the debate on this issue broke down on ideological grounds. On one side were the Democrats who wanted to repeal the policy because they thought it was unjust and discriminatory. They felt that the policy was antiquated and should have been repealed a long time ago. Many Democrats and people on the left could not understand why homosexuals were not permitted to openly serve their country. Republicans and conservatives took a different view. Many people on the right believe that homosexuality is a negative cultural value. They are also concerned that allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military might undermine moral. Furthermore, they dont consider this an urgent issue at the moment. John Kyl, a Republican senator from Arizona, has said that the senate does not have enough time to pass the START nuclear treaty with Russia during the lame duck session; the implication is that if there is not enough time for something as important as the START treaty, there is certainly not enough time for a repeal of DADT (YoungSmith). Patrick Murphy, the sponsor of the repeal in the House, is an interesting figure. He was chosen to sponsor the bill in part because he is an Iraq War veteran, the first to be elected to Congress. It was thought that having him introduce the amendment would protect the Democrats from accusations that they were playing this as a cultural issue. It makes the amendment more persuasive to have it introduced by Congressman Murphy rather than Congressman Barney Frank, they believed. However, in the mid-term elections of November 2010, Murphy was defeated by his Republican opponent (Advocate). This sent a pretty strong message that the repeal of DADT was not electoral gold. The district clearly had conservative voters who Murphy was ignoring. He had probably sponsored the amendment on principle and in opposition to many of his constituents wishes. The policy he was putting forward did not do much to win over undecided or immigrant votes. It appealed largely to liberals. It was not a big vote-getter and was indeed a controversial proposal. After his loss, Murphy has this to say: “"I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution as an Army officer and as a congressman . . . I take that oath to heart, and Im going to fight for the values that are in our Constitution. Im going to fight to make sure that our military has the best personnel policy that it can, and that means repealing the outdated and the dangerous dont ask, dont tell policy." (Advocate). The truth is that America is almost alone in having a policy that discriminates against homosexuals openly serving in the military. Many other countries allow homosexuals to serve openly in their militaries. For example, Israel, Canada, and the U.K., all comparable democracies to the United States allow this to happen. All of these armies are considered to be world class and the presence of homosexuals does not “create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” Indeed, in Canada, Canadian Forces officers have even been married on Canadian army bases (Fejes, 90). While this might be unthinkable in the United States, there is no good reason for it to be so. Many American officers are now comparing their own army to international ones and determining that it is time to bring American practices more in line with practices around the world. These countries’ experience shows that an army does not fall apart when homosexuals are allowed the serve openly; there are no reported negative effects whatsoever. And yet, opponents of the repeal suggest that more surveying of the Armed Forces is required, more consultation, more battlefield interviews. Part of this, it must be assumed, was tactical on the part of Republicans who believed they had a fair chance of taking back Congress at the Mid-term elections. Part of it is Obamas own reticence. Obama does not support gay marriage and probably believes he should be careful in pushing this issue. His liberal base may like the idea of repealing Dont Ask, Dont Tell but there are many independents who have mixed feelings. In order to be re-elected in 2012, Obama must appeal to these independents. That is the reason he has been going slow on this issue despite support from Gates, Colin Powell, and the Joint Chiefs. He feels he should build a large consensus on the issue before he puts his capital behind the Democrats in Congress. The only problem with this plan is that it may now be too late. The Republicans have won back the House and have no plans to repeal DNDT in the future. Also, there are many other issues on the plate of the lame duck session of Congress between now and the new year. There is very little chance that this question will be brought up. In the meantime, polls show a majority of Americans support the idea of repeal (Quinnipiac poll). While a majority may indeed support the policy, it is unlikely these people feel the issue is as important or as urgent as what to do with the Bush tax cuts, another issue Congress is currently grappling with. For that reason, it is less likely that the policy will be repealed this year or in the near future. For Obama this represents something of a setback, another example, as with his promise to close Guantanamo Bay, that he has trouble making the change he promised happen. There is no chance that DADT will be repealed in the lame duck session of Congress. There are too many other important issues that need to be decided by the politicians. Things have been delayed for a long time now, and people dont mind waiting longer (Bendery). People have seen what happened to Patrick Murphy and they understand that there can be electoral consequences to supporting this policy and sticking their necks out. Congress has not been responsive to this type of proposal in the past. Even President Obama, for example, does not support gay marriage. There are few people in Washington who want to expand gay civil rights. Politicians are not responsive to this kind of issue. The midterm elections did not change this. In fact it made people even more wary. However, sadly there is no compromise on this important issue. The majority of politicians in the House now appear to be opposed. At the end of November 2010, the Pentagons report on this issue was published. It may potentially shift some votes. It found as follows: According to a survey sent to 400,000 service members, 69 percent of those responding reported that they had served with someone in their unit who they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of those who did, 92 percent stated that their units ability to work together was very good, good, or neither good nor poor, according to the sources. Combat units reported similar responses, with 89 percent of Army combat units and 84 percent of Marine combat units saying they had good or neutral experiences working with gays and lesbians. At the same time, the report found that 30 percent of those surveyed overall -- and between 40 and 60 percent of the Marine Corps -- either expressed concern or predicted a negative reaction if Congress were to repeal the "dont ask, dont tell" law, which allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military on the condition that they keep their sexuality a secret (Washington Post). This may play a role in convincing a few Republicans to vote for the repeal in the Senate. But this is unlikely to happen during the lame duck session. The truth is that one of the main reasons that other countries allow homosexuals to serve openly is because courts have recognized that homosexuals have the right to be free of discrimination. In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It simply isn’t possible to deny homosexuals the right to serve their country. These legal reasons have been recognized in other countries too and form the basis for many countries’ rejection of similar don’t ask, don’t tell policies. In the United States such rights have not yet been granted (Fejes, 12). There is still a big argument about gay marriage which shows no sign of being resolved any time soon. America appears to be a more culturally divided country on the issue of homosexuality. That may be the way it is, but that is not a very good reason to deny a person the opportunity to serve their country because of an immutable characteristic that really has no connection with the morale or standards of the troupe. The argument against giving homosexuals such rights holds little water. The American army is currently fighting two big wars: one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. It is short of soldiers and needs more. Since the don’t ask, don’t tell policy came into effect, thousands of soldiers have been forced to leave service. This is not right. The military needs more soldiers. Disallowing the service of homosexuals reduces the number of soldiers too much. They can fight well, according to the standards, and should be allowed to serve openly. In these tough times, beggars cannot be choosers. It is not only discriminatory to deny homosexuals the right to serve openly, but it is against the interests of the American armed forces in a time of war—they require more people and they should not waste this untapped resource. However, politicians in the United States do not see a major electoral advantage in pushing this issue. Independent voters do not overwhelmingly support either position. This is all part of a broader debate which is very polarizing. Throughout the early 20th century, homosexuals largely hid their identity or shared their identity with only a small group. Following the Second World War, the American government began a campaign that explicitly denied them civil rights. For example, the right to employment. During the feverish anti-communist spirit that overtook the United States in the late 1940 and 1950s, homosexuals were blacklisted by the federal government because it was believed they were more open to being blackmailed than heterosexual employees (Adam 46). Thousands had their job applications denied not just from the federal government, but also from the military. Certainly the numbers would be even higher in the private sector. In the medical community, homosexuality was considered by many to be an aberration or a personality defect. It was not until 1956, when a scientist was able to do a study showing that an openly gay man was as well-adjusted as a heterosexual man, that this way of thinking slowly began to change (Fejes 122). Homosexuality stayed in the medical books as a problem for many years after this too. The big event in the history of gay civil rights occurred in New York City with the Stonewall Riots in 1969. When police raided a gay nightclub, a riot ensued (Duberman 83). Following this, many gay activists groups were created to lobby for rights and for protection against arbitrary police action. In many respects, the 1960s and the counterculture of that era engendered many civil rights movements, including the African-American one led by Martin Luther King Jr. The time was ripe for all sorts of people who had been oppressed by the culture and the system. Gays and African-Americans both marched together, galvanized by the changes that were happening all around them. Blacks were once unable to stay in certain hotels or restaurants and so were gays. The events of the 1960s galvanized both groups. The huge protests, the assassinations, the “fierce urgency of now” (to quote King), led both groups to say “Enough is enough,” and to begin to organize to increase the power of their voices. There were some important differences. While blacks worked hard to get voting rights acts passed to ensure their power at the polls, gays were more concerned with access to public facilities, avoiding malicious prosecution, and avoiding violence (which they were often subject to). The other difference is the current status of both groups. In some respects, the election of Barack Obama marks the bookend of the African-American civil rights movement: the most powerful position in the country belongs to a black man. For homosexuals, however, there is still much to be done. What is the next step? What lessons can homosexuals today take from their history and apply to their future? How can they be integrated into the military? The key is organization and solidarity. It is important not to rest on your laurels and keep arguing and fighting to ensure your rights are protected. Just because Barack Obama was elected president doesn’t mean that the NAACP should disband. All of these civil rights groups need to work together and work hard ensure everyone’s rights are respected equally. Gays should be allowed to serve openly in the American military: it is only natural. Researching the policymaking issues relating to Dont Ask, Dont Tell shows just how difficult and complex all policy debates are in Washington. It is very easy to say that politicians are lazy or corrupt or are liars. The truth is that the United States is a country of many competing interests and many complex ideals. Politicians work hard to represent their constituents, but no one person can change things completely. People need to build consensuses and try to persuade others of their views using powerful arguments. Change happens slowly and with many hiccups along the way. Throughout the research for this paper, it became clear that policies made by Congress are very complex. The process can be easily slowed down and hijacked. There are many competing forces at work. This is how the sausage is made. Messaging is very important. Politicians need to be able to convince a large number of people that their policy is correct. It is not enough to have the base on side. Politics is not for the faint of heart. You can do your best to support a policy that you truly believe in and still lose your seat, as Patrick Murphy did. In convincing people, the best argument is the facts. Part of use of the Pentagon report on this issue is that it is non-partisan and may convince some people to support the repeal of DADT. Works Consulted Adam, Barry. The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement. New York: G. K. Hall & Co, 1987. Bendery, Jennifer. “Murphy Unclear on Timing of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal.” Roll Call. July 7, 2009. Carpenter, Paul. “Dont Ask, Dont Tell: Bucks Countys Patrick Murphy has prominent role in laws change.” The Morning Call. July 27, 2010. Carter, Chad C. and Kolenc, Antony B. "Dont Ask, Dont Tell:" Has the Policy Met Its Goals? University of Dayton Law Review, Fall 2005. Duberman, Martin. Stonewall. London: Penguin Books, 1993. Eleveld, Kerry. “Patrick Murphy loses seat.” The Advocate. Nov. 2, 2010. http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/11/02/Rep_Patrick_Murphy_Loses_Seat/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AdvocatecomDailyNews+%28Advocate.com+Daily+News%29 Fejes, Fred. Gay Rights and Moral Panic: The Origins of Americas Debate on Homosexuality. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008. Jones, Major Bradley K. "The Gravity of Administrative Discharges: A Legal and Empirical Evaluation" The Military Law Review 59:1–26. January 1973 Marcus, Eric. Making Gay History. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002. Quinnipiac University. “U.S. Voters Say Gays In Military Should Come Out, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds.” February 10, 2010. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1422&What=&strArea=;&strTime=3 Shilts, Randy. Conduct Unbecoming: Gays & Lesbians in the U.S. Military Vietnam to the Persian Gulf. New York, St. Martins Press. 1993. OKeefe, Ed. Dont ask, dont tell report: Little risk to enlisting gays. Washington Post. Nov. 30, 2010. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/11/_the_reports_release_caps.html YoungSmith, Barron . "START to Finish?” New Republic. Nov. 13, 2010. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/79148/start-treaty-obama-kyl-nuclear Read More