Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Who are the loneliest people in the world? People that are in the wrong group. Gay gun owners. Black Republicans. Pro-life feminists. Pro-life liberals. Gay conservatives. Pro-choice social conservatives. (At one time, Jewish conservatives.) In short, anyone who is part of a group by birth, by ideology, or by belief--but doesn't completely agree with that group.

I frequently read, and sometimes link to the blog Gay Patriot, which describes itself as "the Internet home for the American gay conservative." I recently read a six part series there from a couple of years by one of their bloggers who, for obvious reasons, doesn't give his name. Colorado Patriot is the nom de plume he uses. He's a gay, active duty member of the U.S. military. He made some very thoughtful observations about the problems of the current military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (usually abbreviated as DADT), and the problems of changing that policy. It's hard to read his thoughts without feeling really sorry for him, and yet enormous respect for his service, and his unwillingness to put homosexuality above military service:

While I appreciate the efforts of some who say they’re trying to free me from the yoke of DADT, it’s clear many still don’t get it. When people argue about the policy and yell about it being “unfair”, I have to laugh because it shows a pretty thorough lack of understanding of what the military is about in the first place. I endure a lot of unfair things in order to serve. I have to cut my hair a certain way. I have to wear a uniform, and wear it correctly. I can’t do many things my civilian friends are allowed to do. I can’t quit my job; simply walk away and tell my boss to shove it. If I don’t do something my boss tells me to do, I don’t get fired…I go to jail. I could go on. So who gives a rip if I have to stay closeted? Lots of people are in the closet by their own choosing. And even though I didn’t realize I was gay when I joined the military, I was well aware of the policy when I figured myself out. I was also well aware of it the numerous times I’ve re-upped since then. It’s a choice I made, and a choice I stand by, so get off my back about it.
If you want to talk about real sacrifices, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen husbands and fathers peering through the bus window down to their families on their way to who-knows-where for wh0-knows-how-long, with no guarantee they’ll return. What? I can’t tell people I’m a fag? Oh, okay, I guess I can do that. I can hardly consider my sacrifice to be even on the same scale.
There’s the argument about “denying who I am”. Denying who I am? Are you serious? You know who I am? I’m a [....] proud American and military member, that’s who I am. People who argue about “honor” and how somehow living a closeted life (at least at work) is contrary to the principles of honor that the Armed Forces are based on clearly either have never been in the military, or if they have been, learned a vastly different definition of “honor” than I did.
To me, honor means sacrificing and giving of myself for a higher cause. It doesn’t mean being who I am and demanding my way or I’m not going to join the fight. It doesn’t mean joining only on my terms. It doesn’t mean questioning the honor of those who are giving of themselves in some of the most fundamental ways because they don’t prize their gayness as much as the gay “leaders” say they should.
...
There is nothing more honorable than self-sacrifice to help one’s Country through military service. Sacrifice is what the service is all about.
When people ask me “how can you do it?”, I tell them that it’s just another sacrifice I make. It’s amusing sometimes to see the perplexed look on some peoples’ faces when I say that. I’m amazed how hard it seems for some people to believe that I’d willingly make such a sacrifice. For them, I can only presume, being in the closet is asking too much. That’s cool. I say it all the time: “The military’s not for everybody.” Would I like the policy changed? Of course, and I’ve said as much. But do I harbor ill feelings because of it? Am I bitter because of it? Hell no. I know full-well what I’m getting into, and I’ve had every opportunity to back out. The military and the Nation is bigger than me, though, and that’s why I’m here.

Wow! Along the way, Colorado Patriot argues for why allowing homosexuals in the military is a good thing--or at least not a bad thing--but also demolishes some pretty specious arguments for it:

A surprisingly common argument is that the military should “reflect” the society it shelters. This, from a military perspective is preposterous. Sorry to be harsh, but take a look around you: there are handicapped people, old people, infirm people, weak and out-of-shape people, people addicted to drugs, criminals and people of questionable moral fortitude. This list of characteristics making individuals unfit for serving could go on and on. Not to (necessarily) compare gays to these other groups, but the suggestion that the military needs to be representative of the Nation as a whole is so full of obvious holes (from a mission perspective), it hardly needs but the example of its absurdity already shown herein. It’s not the military’s mission to “reflect” its sponsor (it never has been), and its ability to do so has nothing to do with its ability to win wars (its actual mission).

I have my objections to allowing homosexuals into the military, but they aren't what you might think. I do not think that homosexuals can't be good soldiers. My guess is that the more bizarrely self-destructive homosexuals who make such a spectacle of themselves in the streets of San Francisco aren't inclined towards the kind of sacrifice and honor-driven behavior that Colorado Patriot describes. It's the same reason that Code Pink members aren't joining up, either.

As I mentioned several years ago, one my concerns is that in some military settings, with all the requirements to obey orders, and limited opportunity to appeal a decision, it would be very easy to abuse authority--and I gave an example from the end of World War II, when the U.S. Navy had not yet formalized a prohibition on homosexuals in the service, and the nightmare that resulted on one ship. Yes, we have procedures to handle that sort of thing--but for the same reason that women in the military have been sometimes quite reluctant to file charges about rape, the problem will be substantially worse if the victim is a man.

I am concerned that a fair number of current members of the military, if put in a situation like that, might decide not to re-up, and many might decide not to join. How many? It's hard to say for sure, but if even 10% of the current population that is in, or considering going into the military, decided not to do so, it would be catastrophic, since homosexuals are only about 4-4.5% of the male population, and 1-2% of the female population. I don't find a 10% loss rate implausible, considering how traditional much of the population is that joins our military.

What concerns me most of all is this: homosexuals who are currently in the military under DADT are committed to the success of our military--even at some considerable personal sacrifice above and beyond the personal sacrifices that all members of the armed services undergo. They are having to watch what they say (like Colorado Patriot) to be in the service. Dropping DADT would, I fear, encourage a fair number of homosexual activists out to prove a point to enlist--and who would then insist that displays of affection, sex in the barracks, dressing in drag after hours, and other signs of...flamboyance...were part of gay culture. Would any of this set stay in the military, after making their point, and winning their lawsuits? Certainly not. But like the Goodridges, who won the right to marry in Massachusetts in 2003--and are now divorced--they would have done their damage, and gone on to destroy something else.