‘Beginning the Conversation’
At the hearing, will you have speakers both for and against the policy?
Yes. It was not originally my wish to do pro and con, but realistically, since we don't have DoD representation, we want to bend over backward to make sure both sides felt they had an equal opportunity to present witnesses. Traditionally the majority party has the opportunity to get the majority of witnesses, but we chose not to do that. At this hearing, because the DoD will not be present, we're going to hear more anecdotal information than operational.
Since 1993, more than 12,600 men and women have been separated from the military under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." What message does this hearing send to these folks?
The message it sends is that we are finally going to look at this issue fairly and try to understand the impact it's had on service members and their families, as well as our ability to fight the wars we are involved in today and will be involved in tomorrow. Our interest is to get a better understanding of the extent to which we've separated people who want to serve their country and had a lot to offer. When the compromise occurred and this law was passed [in 1993], I was not around then. There are still legitimate concerns on the one hand because we are in the middle of a war, but more significantly, I think, is the fact that we are losing people who want to serve their country.
Do you not believe that being openly gay could be disruptive and could potentially lead to divisive and dangerous situations in a combat setting?
I think there are instances where that could be true, just as it can be true among men and women who are serving together. There are also issues of morale, and a host of other issues, but my sense from talking to commanders and others in the military anecdotally is that it hasn't turned out to be so critical in that regard. There are recent studies showing that it's not a major issue in terms of the ability of military units to function well. I'm hearing that from younger commanders, especially; they have said that it hasn't been an issue. There is definitely a generational aspect to this.
Do you think it's commonly known that among the 25 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit gays and lesbians to serve?
Most of them do. Britain has had a policy of openness since I think 2000. Israel does, too, and Poland. Most of our major allies in fact do. Our troops have served together with troops from all of these countries, and it hasn't been an issue.
While most polls indicate that a majority of Americans do not favor gay marriage, polls show that a
majority of Americans do favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military
. How would you explain or reconcile this seeming dichotomy?
I don't know. It may be that the military issue is less threatening to some people than the marriage issue. It also may be that in this country we greatly value those who are interested in sacrificing for our country. Gays and lesbians are as patriotic as anyone else and want to serve, and they have so many skills to offer, from linguists to medics to soldiers. I know a number of medics and others who serve.
What is the status of the
HR 1246
, the bill that would repeal this law? Does it have a realistic chance of ever passing?
The bill has been introduced. No markup. My gut feeling is, well, I'm not sure how it will do. I know there are districts where it may meet with more opposition than in San Diego, which I represent. The city, generally, is fairly receptive. This weekend we have the gay pride parade, and it's become a major event with public officials, churches, synagogues and companies showing their support. There is perhaps a greater appreciation in San Diego, over the years people have increased their level of acceptance. But things don't happen at once.
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: hubble123 @ 11/16/2008 9:06:45 AM
Comment: I am an active duty Major in the US Army and the views I present here are my own and not in any way an official statement from the government. I'm currently serving as a unit adjutant. Previously, I spent 11 years in the combat arms, have deployed to Somalia, Bosnia, have served in both Korea and Germany, and have a pending deployment to Iraq.
With the pending presidential administration change in 2 months, it is likely the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy will be rexamined by policymakers. Critics of the policy contend it goes too far and is prejudicial in regards to who can serve in the military. In my experience, I think the policy is prudent and best serves the interests of both the military and the nation.
During my time in USAREC, we routinely had to disqualify individuals from enlistment for medical, educational, and legal reasons, dependency issues, and also had a restrictive policy regarding tattoos. Some may joke that the Army will accept anybody off of the street, but this is simply not true. Recruiters work long hours to find eligible men and women who desire to serve the nation. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy simply eliminated one of several questions which was asked when screening applicants for eligibility.
Some critics of the policy contend the policy forces Soldiers to serve in an oppressive atmosphere. Just the opposite, the policy means "witchhunts" at unit level regarding personal, sexual preference are unauthorized. Soldiers are instead judged on their leadership, performance, and professionalism. Just as the US Constitution regards one's home as sacrosact, the policy takes this one step further in that one's sexual preference is not subject to scrutiny, unless a Soldier in word or deed blatantly violates the policy.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice already addresses improper relationships, including adultery, improper relationships with other service members, and relationships that are deemed detrimental to good order and discipline within the ranks. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy means a Soldier enlisting in a VOLUNTEER must abide by the policy.
Does the policy prohibit who a Soldier can reside with, if they are authorized to live off post? No. Does the policy prohibit who a Soldier can list on their SGLI/DD 93 in regards to benefits? No. Does the policy respect an individual's right to privacy regarding their sexual preference? Yes. Does the policy prevent unwarranted unit level "witchhunts" regarding one's sexuality? Yes.
It is an understatement to say how politically and socially volatile this subject is in the United States. This policy allows the US military to stay out of the political fray and avoid unneccessary distractions while manning and training the Army for current and future operations.
Posted By: hubble123 @ 11/16/2008 9:06:22 AM
Comment: I am an active duty Major in the US Army and the views I present here are my own and not in any way an official statement from the government. I'm currently serving as a unit adjutant. Previously, I spent 11 years in the combat arms, have deployed to Somalia, Bosnia, have served in both Korea and Germany, and have a pending deployment to Iraq.
With the pending presidential administration change in less than 60 days, it is likely the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy will be rexamined by policymakers. Critics of the policy contend it goes too far and is prejudicial in regards to who can serve in the military. In my experience, I think the policy is prudent and best serves the interests of both the military and the nation.
During my time in USAREC, we routinely had to disqualify individuals from enlistment for medical, educational, and legal reasons, dependency issues, and also had a restrictive policy regarding tattoos. Some may joke that the Army will accept anybody off of the street, but this is simply not true. Recruiters work long hours to find eligible men and women who desire to serve the nation. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy simply eliminated one of several questions which was asked when screening applicants for eligibility.
Some critics of the policy contend the policy forces Soldiers to serve in an oppressive atmosphere. Just the opposite, the policy means "witchhunts" at unit level regarding personal, sexual preference are unauthorized. Soldiers are instead judged on their leadership, performance, and professionalism. Just as the US Constitution regards one's home as sacrosact, the policy takes this one step further in that one's sexual preference is not subject to scrutiny, unless a Soldier in word or deed blatantly violates the policy.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice already addresses improper relationships, including adultery, improper relationships with other service members, and relationships that are deemed detrimental to good order and discipline within the ranks. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy means a Soldier enlisting in a VOLUNTEER Army must abide by the policy.
Does the policy prohibit who a Soldier can reside with, if they are authorized to live off post? No. Does the policy prohibit who a Soldier can list on their SGLI/DD 93 in regards to benefits? No. Does the policy respect an individual's right to privacy regarding their sexual preference? Yes. Does the policy prevent unwarranted unit level "witchhunts" regarding one's sexuality? Yes.
It is an understatement to say how politically and socially volatile this subject is in the United States. This policy allows the US military to stay out of the political fray and avoid unneccessary distractions while manning and training the Army for current and future operations.
Posted By: joe 6pack @ 10/05/2008 6:12:20 PM
Comment: Thank you Democrats!!!!
VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAT IS GAY
DON'T BE GAY