Don't ask, don't tell

One issue on which Obama campaigned for the presidency that, post-election, he deferred until later in his administration is the military policy of revising or eliminating “don’t ask, don’t tell.” (That policy allows people of all sexual orientations to serve in the military as long as an individual does not disclose through words or actionss that he/she is not heterosexual.) The Clinton administration implemented the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as a compromise between automatically discharging homosexual military personnel and allowing all personnel to serve regardless of sexual orientation. The compromise has satisfied few.

Like Obama, Clinton had solicited and received support from the gay and lesbian community during the run for his first term. That support quickly became insistent demands for action when Clinton defeated President George H.W. Bush. The firestorm of adverse reaction from within the military and conservative groups outside the military appears to have taken the Clinton team by surprise. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy represents an effort to navigate a middle ground between irreconcilable forces on either side of the issue.

American society is changing. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has outlived whatever usefulness the policy may have had. Service in the military has nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation and everything to do with serving the nation. Although recruitment often emphasizes education and other benefits of military service and Congress utilizes the military to achieve other national policy objectives (racial integration, e.g.), the military’s fundamental purpose is to defend national sovereignty.

Every citizen shares that obligation. Every able bodied citizen, regardless of gender orientation, equally shares that obligation. Denying non-heterosexuals the burdens and privileges of military service wrongly discriminates against them. The Episcopal Church’s General Convention almost two decades ago united in supporting the claim of all citizens to equal civil rights, regardless of gender orientation. That support came from both people who advocate the morality of same sex relationships and those who oppose that view.

Assertions that the military could not maintain the good order and disciple necessary to be an effective fighting force if gays openly served presume that both military commanders presently lack control of their units and military personnel widely disregard orders. Do military leaders really want to make either of those claims?

U.S. armed forces are predominantly young, with a median age in the early twenties. These young adults are the very people whose attitudes most reflect society’s growing acceptance of diverse sexual orientations. They have grown up and attended school with people who have varying sexual orientations. Why would they suddenly find serving in the military with openly gay comrades problematic? Surely, a majority of military personnel already knows, or suspect with a high degree of confidence, who is straight and who is gay.

Indeed, opposition to eliminating the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy reflects the military’s conservative tenor and that the conservatism of its leadership in particular. If a broader cross-section of society served in the military, making the military more reflective of society as a whole, the military might better serve the nation. Military leaders might advise more caution in waging wars, valuing the lives of potential enemies equally with their own, a view perhaps semi-heretical to nationalism but firmly grounded in religion.

The military promotes itself as an institution that demands the highest standards of integrity from its personnel. Yet, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy not only sanctions but demands a lack of integrity from the perhaps 5-10% of military personnel who are not heterosexual. In other words, the policy unintentionally promotes hypocrisy.

Individuals are certainly entitled to hold the moral views of their own choosing. Seeking uniformity of belief about the morality of heterosexual or homosexual orientations and behaviors is not the issue. Protecting the civil rights of all by allowing people of all sexual orientations to share equally in the burden and privileges of military service does not move anyone individually or collectively closer to uniformity of believe.

Concomitantly, laws and regulations that prohibit inappropriate heterosexual behavior (e.g., rape and sexual harassment) apply equally to inappropriate homosexual behavior. Flagrant sexual behavior is similarly prohibited when in uniform or in public by members of the armed services.

Not only will changing the policy promote integrity among military personnel and civil rights for all, the change will allow the nation to make fuller use of all its resources. No longer will the military select recruits first based on sexual orientation and then based on best qualified. No longer will the military waste scarce training dollars on service personnel only to subsequently discharge some of those personnel because of sexual orientation. Who can defend such waste of tax dollars as moral?

The time for change is now. People of faith, regardless of their feelings about the rightness or wrongness of non-heterosexual sexuality and behavior, should speak out in support of the change. The military exists to defend the nation, not as a last bastion of immoral discrimination against non-heterosexuals. Let 2010 be a year in which people seek to live with integrity in all things, honoring the image of God in every human by respecting every human’s equal dignity and worth.