Retired Senior Military Officers Call For End To DADT: Gays Serving Openly Pose No ‘Risk’
Retired Senior Military Officers Call For End To DADT: Gays Serving Openly Pose No ‘Risk’
A new report released today by four retired senior military officers endorses a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). The study, sponsored by the Palm Center in California, marks “the first time a Marine Corps general has ever called publicly for an end to the gay ban.” From its findings:
– The law locks the military’s position into stasis and does not accord any trust to the Pentagon to adapt policy to changing circumstances.
– “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has forced some commanders to choose between breaking the law and undermining the cohesion of their units.
– “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has prevented some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members from obtaining psychological and medical care as well as religious counseling.
– “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has caused the military to lose some talented service members.
– Military attitudes towards gays and lesbians are changing.
– Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion.
The Palm Center’s report also notes that DADT is outdated, as many “gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are serving openly” in the military already. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network reports more than 500 U.S. soldiers who are “out” to their colleagues and continue to serve. A December 2006 survey of servicemembers who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan found that 73 percent of those polled were “comfortable with lesbians and gays.”
General John Shalikashvili, the former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who previously favored DADT but reversed course last year in an op-ed in the New York Times, endorsed the study, saying it “ought to be given serious consideration by both Congress and the Joint Chiefs.”
In the past year, there has been increased interest in repealing DADT. Former senator Sam Nunn, once a powerful advocate for the ban, recently said that it may be “appropriate” to consider repealing it. In May, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen told graduating cadets at the U.S. Military Academy that the military was ready to accept gay servicemembers if Congress repeals the law.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If gays can serve in a government that authorizes war why can’t gays serve in such wars?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:01 pmReplace “gays” with “neocons” and you’ll have a much more relevant question.
But still, point well taken.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pmBoth 1 and 2 are excellent points….
July 7th, 2008 at 6:07 pmDo you really think the christian militia now working on the umpteenth crusade is going to put up with anything but their own form of homosexuality? May we have a psychologist weigh on on the psycho sexual world of the christian gay army officer corpse we have today? Or would that some how be offensive?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:10 pmralph,
nicely done, lad!.
The Tuskegee Airmen and the US Army 447th for example are testament to the inherent bollocks of any bigoted “argument” use to justify a policy or position.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:13 pmLet’s not let anyone serve in the military, then we’ll be safe.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:31 pmThey might make gays in the government who haven’t come out of the closet feel uncomfortable, that’s the risk.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:32 pmGen Wes Clark said the same thing a long time ago– and was endorsed by The Washington Blade when he ran for president in 2004 and said as much to The Advocate
funny how the countries that have mandatory service don’t seem to worry about “the gays!”
July 7th, 2008 at 6:41 pmNew GOP slogan:
“Support our (non-gay) troops”
July 7th, 2008 at 6:46 pmLet’s not forget that DADT was/is a political compromise that made sexual discrimination in the military illegal when it came to recruitment or voluntary induction, but still allowed for discrimination as a ‘valid’ reason for dismissal.
That ANY homosexuals still joined-up despite this ’stacked-deck’ is impressive to me–kind of stupid but admirable, gutsy.
Once the US military was forced to induct and deploy African Americans in WWII, I’m not aware of any problem with them being used in Vietnam, or any other conflict since for that matter, or in having them overly represented ( relative to the general population) in the standing peace-time force.
DADT has served its purpose–it was a policy bastardized by bigoted Republican opposition but it DID get gays a foot in the door which was necessary. Depeneding on the political lay of the land this is how progress has been made, a little or a lot depending on who has the leverage at the time.
Quite apart from the moral aspect, the US (or any other nation for that matter) simply can’t afford to maintain such bigotry.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:55 pm“We ain’t puttin’ up with no gay men in this man’s army. If we want gay men we’d have a variety of colors of uniforms to choose from. We’d have gourmet meals. We’d hang pretty pictures in the barracks. No sir, we aren’t after havin’ our men be happy. We want them miserable and ready to fight. You can’t fight when you’re happy, so we ain’t makin’ our men gay….What’s that? ‘Gay’ means what?…Oh, never mind, then.”
/snark off
July 7th, 2008 at 7:06 pmThat’s exactly what we need . . . CONGRESS TO BE IN CHARGE OF GAYS IN THE MILITARY.
Maybe Senators Craig and that goofus from Louisiana can sponsor the legislation.
DANCE ON AMERICA. . . the Piper can wait
July 7th, 2008 at 7:08 pmAmen. Finally, someone with real intelligence.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:24 pmIt is such a stupid and ignorant rule to ban gays from the military simply because of their sexual orientation.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:33 pmThe last poll I read said that something like 57% of the people in the military say they are perfectly comfortable serving with gays and would like them to be able to serve openly. It’s time to change this policy. It’s been time to change it for quite some time now.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:50 pm.
But gays are so, SO, scary to big strong army men…
[/snark]
.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:15 am#2 Ralph
July 8th, 2008 at 2:17 am…BRAVO!
I’m sure we’re going to get a number of vituperate posts from anti-progress posters about how gay people shouldn’t have any rights, much less the right to fight for their country.
Then we’ll get some people who claim certain verses of the Bible as their reason for hating gay people. Of course, they’ll completely ignore other Biblical verses that are inconvenient to their arguments, and anyone questioning their inconsistent perspective will be somehow “anti-Christian”.
The truth of the matter is that allowing gay people to openly serve in the military will not negatively impact any heterosexuals who are comfortable with their own sexuality. It’s only the men and women who are “questioning” or “unsure” of themsleves, or who ar afraid of gay people, who will have problems.
This is exactly the same as the people who were afraid of blacks serving alongside whites. Guess what? They got over their misconceptions and fear. So will the minority of men & women scared of gay people who are currently serving.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:54 amYou would think the government / military would be overjoyed to have all them “gays” in the military. That would mean more men to send to their untimely deaths in Irag. I mean, they will recruit ex-cons, etc. …but kick out gays. Hmmm…
July 8th, 2008 at 10:18 amhttp://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000007777.cfm
Good News: Exodus National Conference Spreads Message of Hope
July 8th, 2008 at 11:23 am
DADT should only refer to what political party you belong to.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:39 amhttp://www.beyondexgay.com/conference
Undoing the damage that ex-gay therapies cause.
http://www.washblade.com/2007/6-29/news/national/10835.cfm
Three former “ex-gay” leaders were scheduled to make public apologies Wednesday in Los Angeles for the harm their ministries caused gays and lesbians, and will call for those still involved in ex-gay therapy to acknowledge their part.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:45 amI love it…FOUR retired guys think it’s OK….gimme a break, I’m yawning….do you all know there are about 10,000 LIVING retired Generals and Admirals from our military services not to mention so many more thousands veterans. Four does not equate to a majority…ask the rest and I bet you get a different outcome…another media sham. Treat the military like a corporation and you’ll get a corporation…next up unions and votes about whether to follow orders…no veteran would stand for this.
January 14th, 2009 at 8:24 pm