Saturday, January 17, 2009

I Don’t Want to Hear It

If you want to illustrate the generational gap, there may be no more telling issue to raise than that of gays in the military. Ask my peers about homosexuals and you will get a diatribe against their perverted lifestyle, replete with punctuation by a litany of coarse descriptive pejoratives. To summarize, they are despised. Ask the high school/college-age crowd and they are pretty much laissez-faire. The “live and let live” attitude prevails.

Much of the question revolves around the “nature or nurture” aspects of the issue. Is it a conscious behavioral choice, or is it a genetic predisposition that makes the orientation inevitable? I’ve always found it difficult to believe that someone would choose to face that life in a society which views it as largely abnormal. Just as I know I didn’t wake up one day and choose to be heterosexual, I don’t accept that others made any conscious choice in the matter either. At the bottom line (no pun intended) I’m not concerned as long as their choice doesn’t impact me. I’ve never been able to understand how someone’s sex partner could possible influence my marriage. I’ve never assumed that government prohibiting or recognizing the legality of a two-person union would have any impact either way on their behavior in the bedroom. My moral behavior is my choice and I neither impose my ethics on others nor allow them to impose on me. I guess I’m laissez-faire too.

But, what about the military? The percolating issue is “don’t ask, don’t tell.” President Obama is apparently poised to change the policy shortly after assuming the role of CinC. What’s my opinion? Frankly, Scarlett…

First, let’s acknowledge that most folks haven’t really examined what DA/DT means. Begin with the military proscription against homosexual behavior and the policy of involuntary separation of homosexuals. It still exists. But, if the command structure doesn’t ask someone to incriminate themselves, there is no reason to know or act on the fact. Don’t ask. And, if the individual can keep their mouth shut and not declare themselves as gay, they are not in jeopardy. Don’t tell. I don’t profess that I’m a flaming hetero, who likes voluptuous women with ample curves and insatiable appetites. You don’t profess what your particularl preferences are, and then we all get along.

Second, please note that unwelcome sexual advances are verboten regardless of the gender of the individuals. Heterosexuals can’t prey on subordinates or co-workers, so homosexuals have to keep their urges sublimated as well.

Third, recognize that some demographic slices of our society (and our military) retain strong prejudices against homosexuals. Since the military is an “up or out” system of rank, that means that a homosexual individual must advance in rank and responsibility and inevitably be placed in a leadership or supervisory position. If the prejudiced component of our military is too large to accept that leadership from a known homosexual, then order and discipline will be threatened. If the prejudiced percentage has reduced to a very small number, the problem of leadership goes away. The question is; have we reached that point sociologically in America?

Fourth, anyone who believes that homosexuals are not serving honorably, effectively, courageously and in leadership positions in our military is ignoring reality. This is true now, and has been true in the past. The issue is whether they disclose their orientation. If they don’t, they have no problem. If they do, under DA/DT they are out.

Now, I would be very apprehensive about a precipitous change in policy by the new administration. Lacking some evidence to support the fact that the military rank and file are ready to accept gays at all level and to follow them unquestioningly into battle, I would be reluctant to change a policy that fits the society. Responding to a vocal, but largely non-military constituency on this issue is political pandering of the highest order.

This issue will get a lot of talk-show yammering in the coming weeks. Try to filter out the emotion, the religious overlay, the moral posturing and the appeals to “fairness.” Take a pragmatic approach and see what solution you come up with.

I’m concluding that no action is currently the right action.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ed,I agree with you,however I think BO will cater to the demands of the very small highly vocal demanders from his constituency. He does not appear to be the kind of leader to let sleeping dogs lie.Jack M

deformedFrog said...

I'm a "homocon" (gay right-winger) who stumbled upon this post randomly. First off, nice blog entry - seems fair, informed, and balanced. Your points about unknown (and potentially negative) consequences of a policy change on this issue are well taken, and they are concerns I've long voiced as well. That is, the military should be out-of-bounds when it comes to the left's (often silly) social engineering experiments. For the most part, I'm completely unimpressed with the left-wing talking point about how most other industrialized nations allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their armed forces (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, et al.) for the rather obvious reason that those countries don't really have armed forces with any real responsibilites. The one exception on that usual list, though, is Israel. My understanding is that Israel allows gays and lesbians to serve openly in it's armed forces - and despite the fact that many conservative Jews have issues with homo's. At the very least, I hope that if BO pushes for ending DA/DT that there is consultation with the Israelis on how our armed forces should handle it.