The Boston Globe reports that a top military journal is about to publish a research article that concludes that there is no justification for the "don't ask, don't tell"(DADT) policy. Read the article here.
The writer reportedly concludes that the policy is hurting the military when it must dismiss qualified personnel and hurts the people who remain closeted in order to serve.
It's about time.
I have gay and lesbian friends in the military who have had to go to extraordinary lengths to hide their orientation in order to serve. I don't feel at liberty to share their stories, except to say that I have asked out loud why they haven't just quit, rather than deny their personal lives.
The President had discussed the injustice of the DADT policy during the campaign, but the hope that he might lift it by executive order was dashed. This article should help provide backbone to the military, Congress, and the White House to get rid of this sad legacy signed by Bill Clinton.
Let's pray that the end of DADT is close.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I do not understand all of the issues included in the DADT, but one thing I'm concerned about is whether, or not, any repeal of that policy will also take into consideration creating alternate living/changing/showering arrangements for those who, at the present, find themselves sharing intimate quarters with others whom they find sexually attractive. Obviously, the current, cultural view is that military men and women shouldn't be sharing showers and dressing quarters because of, no doubt in large part, the psychological distraction of sexual attraction. It has been torture for gay men to be in close, naked proximity to that gender they find attractive--other men; just as it's awkward for straight men to have to deal with the physical displays of arousal from gay men, like it would be if women were forced to shower with men. Personally, I think the DADT rule was more for the financial benefit of not having to create four (or more) separate living arrangements to accommodate everyone's orientations, which they might be forced to do if they acknowledged the reality of extending the current princple of separation of genders to ALL the different possible categories. If they won't give gays their own quarters, then they lose their argument for separating men and women in the first place, which, of course, would not only be unacceptable to our current cultural mindset, but also probably wouldn't go over well with the military women (or their husbands). Maybe Clinton realized the protection DADT offers to everyone involved out-weighs the issue of letting everyone publicly announce that they are attracted to the people they currently are made to shower with.
Post a Comment