The gay thing - Part 1: Gays in the military (a-b)

Part 1: Gays in the military

a. Semantics

Let me start by saying the phrase "repeal 'Don't ask, don't tell (henceforth DADT)'" is quite misleading.

re·peal

[ri-peel]

–verb (used with object)

1. to revoke or withdraw formally or officially: to repeal a grant.

2. to revoke or annul (a law, tax, duty, etc.) by express legislative enactment; abrogate.

-noun

3. the act of repealing; revocation; abrogation.

 DADT was enacted in 1993. It did not change the rules for homosexuals serving in the military. It changed the rules of the military to prohibit them from inquiring without justification. Right now if a service member with homosexual tendencies does not commit homosexual acts (as defined by the UCMJ and applicable service regulations) while obligated to the military, they will not experience any lawful consequences.

Were DADT to be repealed, it would allow the military to inquire to the sexual orientation of all current and future service members without provocation. This would of course give a whole arsenal of charges to commanders with an agenda (articles 83, and 107 come to mind)

So the real question is whether to enact new laws to prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

b. Motivations

Let's not kid ourselves, the real reason for the prohibition is that the authorities believe that homosexuality is immoral, and they do not want immoral people to defend the nation. Despite all the other excuses we might hear, that is the true motive.

Were it truly about readiness, order, and discipline the military would ban all sexual behavior for it's troops (as they do in theater). Now if the military wants to do that (and congress makes the appropriate changes to the U.S. code) I have no problem with it. It is not a practical measure because we would have a much smaller military, but it is at least a reasonable one that is concerned with readiness rather than image.

From a military readiness standpoint, a BJ has significantly less potential for impact than a session of traditional intercourse. There is reduced risk of disease transmission and pregnancy (relevant to male and female service members). There is really no logical justification why the latter is permitted and the former punishable by court martial.