A Simple Question on DADT

Is there really anyone who can credibly argue at this point that the policy regarding homosexuals openly serving in the armed services is anything other than basic discrimination?

Given the position of the President (aka the Commander-in-Chief), the Secretary of Defense, the Joints Chiefs along with the now-released Pentagon report (not to mention the survey results from the troops themselves), is there is really any reason to retain the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy save for basic anti-homosexual prejudice?

In other words:  is there really anyone who can credibly argue at this point that the policy regarding homosexuals openly serving in the armed services is anything other than basic discrimination?

(Ok, that’s two questions, but one sentiment).

FILED UNDER: Military Affairs, Quick Takes, US Politics, , ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Davebo says:

    Depending on your state or congressional district there certainly could be a political reason.
     
    Though nationwide surveys show great support to repeal it, that may not be how it places in certain states.  Including my home (and where you got your Ph.D. from.
     
     

  2. I take the point, but I suppose that changes the answer to my question.

  3. mantis says:

    is there really anyone who can credibly argue at this point that the policy regarding homosexuals openly serving in the armed services is anything other than basic discrimination?
     
    John McCain! Oh wait, you said “credibly.”  Then, no.

  4. Linda says:

    I would posit that DADT makes someone, somewhere feel safe, and all warm and fuzzy. Who, I don’t know. I guess, basically, I don’t care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. And if gays want to serve in the military, more power to them. If they can make it through basic and any of the other training, that should be all that matters.

  5. Steve Verdon says:

    John McCain! Oh wait, you said “credibly.”  Then, no.

     
    We have a winner!  I lol’ed

  6. An Interested Party says:

    “I would posit that DADT makes someone, somewhere feel safe, and all warm and fuzzy.”
    Jim Crow laws also made someone, somewhere feel safe, and all warm and fuzzy…
     

  7. I suppose someone might argue that some paranoid rightwinger might argue that the President (aka the Commander-in-Chief), the Secretary of Defense, and the Joints Chiefs are all in on some evil liberal social engineering conspiracy.
    But in answer to your questions, no.

  8. Linda says:

    Interested Party,
    Jim Crow was wrong, and DADT is wrong. Jim Crow was done away with, now DADT needs to be done away with.

  9. John Peabody says:

    No, no one can argue that point. The repeal is a foregon conclusion. But we are not going to walk off hand and hand into the sunset!  Flare-ups and problems WILL occur. Lawsuits will come from servicemembers who disagree. The chain of command will have some incredible guidelines to enforce down the line.
    My camel’s nose in the tent: Dependent ID cards. Several states legalize gay unions. Who will be the first to apply for sponsorship? Get free medical care? Access to the post gym? Join the Enlisted Spouses Club?
    For the people who are frightened at the thought of being in the same county as a gap person, it will be a scary time. For the rest of us, the headaches are just beginning.
    John Peabody (SFC, US Army, retired)

  10. Steve Plunk says:

    Linda,  Even explaining why some people would support DADT or why they are opposed to gay marriage will get you labeled a bigot.  Even if you support repeal the question then becomes why you didn’t five or ten years ago.  I guess sensitivity to Christian morals is not permitted among the enlightened.

  11. tom p says:

    I guess sensitivity to Christian morals is not permitted among the enlightened.

    Well, Christians have never been particularly sensitive to my morals, why do they expect me to give a rats ass about theirs?

  12. Linda says:

    Steve,
    Opposition to gays as no different than opposition to blacks, Irish, Japanese, Jews, women, etc. It is bigotry.
     

  13. DonM says:

    I don’t worry about US soldiers. Ever since Jennifer grew that nice rack and joined the Army Nurse Corps in WWII, US soldiers have been able to handle being “checked out” by potential sex partners.
    No, the concern is what happens when soldiers are captured. Islam already has a long tradition of treating prisoners more harshly than I hope that anyone reading this can imagine. They will use the notion that homosexuals serve openly as an excuse to treat all soldiers more harshly.