An example of “framing” the debate:
“The Pentagon study that argues that gay troops could serve openly without hurting the military’s ability to fight is expected to re-ignite debate this month on Capitol Hill over repealing the 17-year-old ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.
Officials familiar with the 10-month study’s results have said a clear majority of respondents don’t care if gays serve openly, with 70 percent predicting that lifting the ban would have positive, mixed or no results. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the findings hadn’t been released.”
And the problem with this is that it is dishonest. It “frames” the reality completely out of the subject.
That people think Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is bigoted is not news to me. That they are wrong is somewhat less apparent apparent because the history of it has been obscured.
If it were just a matter of acceptance among military personnel, they’d be right, it’d be an easy fix, but that’s not the case. But just like they hide the facts presented on dicrimination, they refuse to address the facts regarding real-world, actual people’s lives, issues about making a “simple” switch.
Fact: Claiming that DADT is discrimination is a lie. In fact its just the opposite. It was, and remains, a massive step forward for gay rights. Don’t agree? Fine. Please be good enough tell me how it’s not an advance over a time when opportunities in the military were completely closed to those who followed the rules because they were rules, or for those who would join and hide their nature, and would have resulted in criminal prosecution if found out.
Is it fair that, under current policy, that they must still hide a part of who they are? Meh. I don’t want to know that my heterosexual commrades are heterosexual or any of the details that go with it; the private should remain private (and this is enforcable under DADT policy today). There is the indisputable inequity that one group can speak openly of things they should not, and the other cannot. Compared to bar of enlistment or prosecution it still seems fairly minor–there are other ways in which a service member’s speech rights are limited.
As for me, I couldn’t care less. I just want the Soldier next to me to be as dedicated to service and the mission as I am and don’t see their private habits as any more my buinsess as whether they play World of Warcraft or not.
As for any “safety issues”, the left would love to have their view of us as slightly evolved Neanderthals validated by some incident of stupidity. I’ll wager that any incident that does happen, when viewed dispassionately through comparisson with the numbers of similar incidents involving heterosexuals, there will be no significant statistical difference. “Hate crime” hysteria wil make that impossible, but that’s a separate issue.
All that said, there are , indeed a number of practical obstacles that must be overcome; privacy, housing,…. The services must be given time to work out how to make this happen.
Another Fact: Repeal of DADT is all but inevitable. I don’t have a problem with that nor do most of my commrades. but it has to be done in a smart way that adresses the ancillary issues. What I see in the “repeal now”crowd is a bunch of sore winners.
–What’s the answer, for instance, to military housing post-DADT? My “get over it” attitude toward the hypothetical Soldier worried that someone’s “staring at his junk” is that of the grumpy senior NCO who only gets a limited set of resources and has to make all of it work and accomplish missions. It is not a long term plan and cannot be.
Do we have four sets of barracks; hes, shes, he-shes,and she-hes? What happens when the B and T of LGBT get into the act–six sets? How about one and we’ll equally discomfort everyone? They want this simple switch to happen fast, but there’s the considered and informed plan? Emotional tripe don’t cut it.
–And as I have faith that Congress will undoubtedly hand us the soup sandwich, details such as likely not altering Title 10′s prohibitions against sodomy, what’s the poicy on that? Do we ignore the old law as it conflicts with new law?
–Then there’s benefits–one domestic partner is in the service and one is not. Is this a spouse? Do they get health insurance? Are they eligible for on-post housing? Do they get commisary privileges? That’s a completely different law and repealing DADT has no effect on it. And if you want to ensure that the “all but inevitable” part of repeal comes into play, insist on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act at the same time.
A Moon Shot is a cake walk by comparison.
22 of 24 NATO countries allow gays to serve openly. Even that is an attempt to oversimplify. For every problem there exists a solution that is simple, easy to understand, easy to communicate, and wrong. It is not garden-variety. It is monumental, and far reaching. Not simple, not easy to understand, not easy to communicate.