Why Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Must Be Repealed

In follow up to these two posts.

I spent the 1990’s as a quasi-military brat. My mother had been in the Navy during the 1980s but had left the service shortly after I was born. In the early nineties, she married an enlisted Navy man and so until the end of the decade, I grew up as a military brat. We didn’t live on base, but the apartments we lived in, indeed the town we lived in was basically a Navy town.

That experience has forever endeared me to the armed forces. It has also engendered a certain amount of respect for how different life in/with the military can be, how much harder it is and can be for those who serve, and the challenges for dependants and friends alongside the all-encompassing nature of military service.

That experience is why I regard Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell practically barbarian in its treatment of gays and lesbians in the military. Supporters of the policy contend that it doesn’t affect that many people or prevents homosexuals from flaunting their sexuality. Who do they think would be out in the military? Perez Hilton? What they blindly ignore is critical role that romantic partners and spouses play in the lives of those who serve. They also ignore the deleterious effects of lying about oneself and the atmosphere of fear and retribution that surrounds gay servicemen and lesbian servicewomen.

The family is more than support for active duty military personnel, they’re extensions of that person. The stresses of deployment and adjusting to return are well-documented not just for soldiers but also their family members. For closeted soldiers and their partners, they are alone. Alone in their stress, alone in their worry, alone in their grief. The supports the military has developed are partially inaccessible to soldiers, for whom certain topics simply cannot be discussed. Moreover, the behaviour of military children and the expectations placed on military girlfriends and wives are seen as reflections upon the soldier in question, particularly officers. Though the role for husbands of female soldiers is less defined, the minimized or complete lack of a role for gay and lesbian partners is hardly invisible.

Outside of the affected emotional bonds between soldiers and their families, financial ones matter as well. Military families are privy to any number of honors and benefits, that gay and lesbian soldiers lack. Scholarship opportunities for their children, or spouse’s children. Access to military discounts, base, and special offers make being gay in the military alienating and expensive. Though critics might argue that this amounts to gays and lesbians wanting special treatment or breaks. In this case, it’s important to recognize that these benefits are both a symbolic recognition of the hardships faced by soldiers and dependants and a substantive benefit meant to offset relatively low salaries for military officers.

Though hardly uniform or perfectly applied, the military’s culture of integrity and honor is something rare and impressive. Asking soldiers to simply not discuss their sexuality or sexual conduct sounds easy enough in practice. In reality however, particularly the realities of military culture, it’s much, much harder. In a culture that mocks and denigrates homosexuality, you’re asking people to subject themselves to mockery and antagonism while often misrepresenting themselves. In a culture that prides integrity, is there a more difficult or challenging request? In fact, by forcing soldiers to remain closeted, the military has pushed intra-service support networks underground in a way that arguably undermines rules against fraternization.

Finally, the threat of dishonorable discharge looms heavily soldiers for being themselves. Those dismissed under DADT lose more than their jobs. They lose pensions and benefits. The same pensions and benefits that would almost criminal to refuse soldiers for admitting they had a wife or husband and bringing them to a social function with other soldiers in attendance. This nation talks about the sacrifices of and debt owed our veterans and current soldiers. Those sacrifices and debts are no less recognizable with regards to gay and lesbian servicemembers. So not only should DADT be repealed but those discharged under it since its inception should be retroactively given their benefits. As a nation we must honor our commitments to those that serve us, to do otherwise is dishonorable and insulting.

In addition to the realities of lost benefits, the threat of discharge is just as foul and problematic. Soldiers outed by jilted romantic partners, angry colleagues, or anybody else whose actions fall into the category of revenge outing face enormous stresses in their personal and professional lives. They are living a nightmare of government sanctioned blackmail and insecurity. Gay servicemen who are the victims of abuse are left without recourse and sometimes without escape. For women, it is particularly noxious. There are reports that women in the armed forces are sexually assaulted and threatened with allegations of lesbianism. While hardly the rule, these odious behavioural exceptions remain invisible and unprosecuted because of a culture that wants gays and lesbians to remain silent and invisible. It also keeps them compromised and vulnerable.

The stories of servicemen and women who are gay and lesbian are moving and a window into the results of a barbaric and inhumane policy. However, what is just as moving is how many stories aren’t told and how many are left to tell. While there’s a point of enormous contrast between DADT and military desegregation, namely that gays are invisible in a way black soldiers weren’t. There is a comparison that I hope will become true when DADT is no longer law. After desegregation, the military -again imperfectly – spent decades working to eliminate racism within the armed forces. Given that military law is both farther reaching and more severe than civilian law, I hope in the wake of DADT repeal, the armed forces will again make such efforts and become a model employer of anti-homophobia (Amorism?).

To learn more, visit http://www.sldn.org/

~ by Kyle on November 13, 2009.