In Praise of DADT
Dec. 31st, 2010 11:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mysidBefore you light the fire under a pot of tar or rip open pillows to get feathers, remember who’s writing this and read further. I’m just as thrilled as any of you that our GLBT brothers and sisters will now be able to serve openly and with pride in the US military, and that their spouses and partners should finally get the recognition and support that has always been offered to the spouses of heterosexual members of the military. And yet, I wish to praise “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because— I’m about to show my age here— I well remember that it was a major step forward in GLBT rights.
Before DADT, homosexuals were not allowed to serve in the US military. Period. In order to serve in the military, people had to swear that they were not homosexual. If a GLBT person wished to serve, he or she had to compromise their ideals enough to lie about his/her sexual orientation, and it wasn’t just a lie of omission. Then, for the entire term of his/her service, he/she had to live in fear that he/she would be found out, and if found out, dishonorably discharged for having lied. And all this while the military was actively seeking out the homosexuals in its midst in order to dishonorably discharge them.
DADT changed all that. DADT said, “You can be homosexual and still serve in the US military.” People were no longer asked their sexual orientation. The military no longer tried to figure out their sexual orientation. Yes, people still had to keep their orientation a secret if they were GLBT— and that was a major issue, I’m not trying to minimize it— but compared to the situation that existed before, it was a major improvement. Before DADT, the US military claimed to be a heterosexuals-only club— with the few GLBT’s who snuck in driven out as dishonorable liars. After DADT, GLBT’s were permitted to serve, and it became increasingly difficult for even the most virulent homophobe to deny that a significant portion of the US military was indeed GLBT.
Which helped set the stage for the landmark decision two weeks ago. Once one acknowledged that many of our servicemen and women are GLBT, it became unconscionable to deny them the right to acknowledge the truth of their lives and their loves. They are serving our country; shouldn’t we support them by allowing them to do so openly? But I must argue that the country wouldn’t have been ready to allow them to serve openly if it hadn’t already acknowledged that they are serving our country—and that is a big part of what DADT did.
DADT was a compromise, and like all compromises it satisfied no one completely. It was merely a small step forward, but it was the crucial first step forward. Even at the time of its inception, I remember it being spoken of in those terms. President Clinton and the other politicians who supported it did so knowing that it would inevitably lead to GLBT persons serving openly in the military.
A month or two ago, some general made a comment in the press that if DADT was repealed, he would hope that the military would be given sufficient time to devise ways to “deal” with the issues it would raise. I laughed and pointed out— to an empty room— that they’d had almost twenty years to do so. DADT was designed to permit GLBT people to serve in the military while the military figured out how to accommodate their serving openly. DADT’s biggest drawback was that it didn’t have a deadline for the next step built in, but I well remember that when it was enacted, it was assumed to have one.
So, let’s celebrate the victory of GLBT’s being finally allowed to serve in the US military openly and proudly, but stop vilifying DADT, and let’s celebrate it as the important first step that it was. Thanks, Bill.
Before DADT, homosexuals were not allowed to serve in the US military. Period. In order to serve in the military, people had to swear that they were not homosexual. If a GLBT person wished to serve, he or she had to compromise their ideals enough to lie about his/her sexual orientation, and it wasn’t just a lie of omission. Then, for the entire term of his/her service, he/she had to live in fear that he/she would be found out, and if found out, dishonorably discharged for having lied. And all this while the military was actively seeking out the homosexuals in its midst in order to dishonorably discharge them.
DADT changed all that. DADT said, “You can be homosexual and still serve in the US military.” People were no longer asked their sexual orientation. The military no longer tried to figure out their sexual orientation. Yes, people still had to keep their orientation a secret if they were GLBT— and that was a major issue, I’m not trying to minimize it— but compared to the situation that existed before, it was a major improvement. Before DADT, the US military claimed to be a heterosexuals-only club— with the few GLBT’s who snuck in driven out as dishonorable liars. After DADT, GLBT’s were permitted to serve, and it became increasingly difficult for even the most virulent homophobe to deny that a significant portion of the US military was indeed GLBT.
Which helped set the stage for the landmark decision two weeks ago. Once one acknowledged that many of our servicemen and women are GLBT, it became unconscionable to deny them the right to acknowledge the truth of their lives and their loves. They are serving our country; shouldn’t we support them by allowing them to do so openly? But I must argue that the country wouldn’t have been ready to allow them to serve openly if it hadn’t already acknowledged that they are serving our country—and that is a big part of what DADT did.
DADT was a compromise, and like all compromises it satisfied no one completely. It was merely a small step forward, but it was the crucial first step forward. Even at the time of its inception, I remember it being spoken of in those terms. President Clinton and the other politicians who supported it did so knowing that it would inevitably lead to GLBT persons serving openly in the military.
A month or two ago, some general made a comment in the press that if DADT was repealed, he would hope that the military would be given sufficient time to devise ways to “deal” with the issues it would raise. I laughed and pointed out— to an empty room— that they’d had almost twenty years to do so. DADT was designed to permit GLBT people to serve in the military while the military figured out how to accommodate their serving openly. DADT’s biggest drawback was that it didn’t have a deadline for the next step built in, but I well remember that when it was enacted, it was assumed to have one.
So, let’s celebrate the victory of GLBT’s being finally allowed to serve in the US military openly and proudly, but stop vilifying DADT, and let’s celebrate it as the important first step that it was. Thanks, Bill.