Amanda Krinke
Composition 1022 54/55
Brian Lewis
September 8, 2009
Hypocrisy – “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Every American, unless living under a rock, has heard of Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10 – the infamous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The policy, created in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, states that, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability (“Title 10 > Subtitle A > Part II > Chapter 37 > Section 654 § 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces”)”. In simpler words, a homosexual in the military means awkward sexual advances that could cause tension between soldiers, thus distracting them from their work. However, I believe that sexuality in any form has absolutely nothing to do with participation in the military, and if someone is a homosexual, it makes absolutely no difference in how they perform.
The ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy is a great thing, supporters will tell you. After all, homosexuality is considered by the pentagon to be a, “condition, circumstance, or defect (Lusero)”. Since it has been classified in a category that contains other ailments such as stuttering, dyslexia, sleepwalking, motion sickness, obesity, or insect venom allergies (Baldor), it’s clear why the average American should be nervous about having a soldier with such a condition fighting along side our good boys and girls of the military. After all, being a homosexual, clearly, impairs a person’s ability to fight for their country.
This explanation of homosexuality is troubling. I have never met a homosexual that has had impairment as a direct result of their sexual orientation, and it is preposterous to think such. There is clearly no scientific foundation for this claim – it is the result of closed-minded thinking. In fact, plenty of now de-closeted veterans of the war did great things during their time of service. Since 1982, more than 13,000 homosexuals have been discharged from the military. Many had been outstanding, receiving bronze or silver stars (“Gay Soldiers, Good Soldiers”). And yes, even if there were some who caused trouble while enlisted, are there not certain straight soldiers that we’ve heard more news about? Take for example, the story of Steven Green, a former U.S. soldier that plotted with a group of fellow soldiers to rape a 14 year-old girl whose home was near to their base. He and his comrades dressed in dark clothing and painted their faces so they could enter the home unnoticed. Once inside they killed the girl’s father, mother, and younger sister. After murdering her family, they raped the girl and then burned her body to try to hide the evidence (“Ex-soldier could face death over Iraq murders, rape”).
Obviously the army does not tolerate this type of murderous behavior, as Steven and his fellow soldiers have been convicted for the crime. Steven is now up for the death penalty (“Ex-soldier could face death over Iraq murders, rape”.) However, there has never been story about a scandal such as this having homosexual perpetrators. Perhaps that tells us that sexuality is not a deciding factor on worthiness of being enlisted in the army? In fact, maybe that tells us that the army’s fear of homosexuals causing trouble within the military is hypocritical. After all, I don’t think the murder and raping of an innocent girl exactly qualifies as “morale, good order and discipline,” such as homosexuality would be “threatening.”
Besides the point of homosexuality having no influence on a soldier’s performance whatsoever, I must bring up the fact that the military is not about sex. In fact, the military was formed to protect the rights and people of our country. However, the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy states that one cannot commit homosexual acts such as exchanging any bodily contact between members of the same biological sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires while serving in the military (“Title 10 > Subtitle A > Part II > Chapter 37 > Section 654 § 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces”). Since this policy only covers homosexual acts, is it suggesting that heterosexual bodily contact is permissible? That in the military, sex, as long as it is between two persons of opposite sexes, is kosher? The hypocrisy of such a policy is obvious, and appalling.
In conclusion, the military is a place of war. Instead of worrying about what goes on between people during their off time, the military leaders should focus more on battle strategies and trying to win or end this war. If military leaders are able to get their minds out of the gutter and into the battlefield, the military will be more unified as a result. So I say we make a new policy that says that there should be no mentioning of sex in the military whatsoever – be it heterosexual or homosexual. We should judge people by their character and values, not by who they choose to sleep with. It is a simple matter of minding one’s own business – which may be hard in this day and age of knowing every dirty detail about your neighbor's business. But I think it is not too much to ask for, especially for the soliders that are risking their lives for us.
Works Cited
“Ex-soldier could face death over Iraq murders, rape” CNN. CNN, 8 May, 2009. Web. 10 Sep 2009
"Gay Soldiers, Good Soldiers." The New York Times. The New York Times, 1 Sep, 1991. Web. 8 Sep 2009
Lusero, Indra. "PSYCHOANALYSTS CALL FOR OPEN GAY SERVICE." Palm Center. University of California. 29 Jan, 2009. Web. 8 Sep 2009.
“Title 10 > Subtitle A > Part II > Chapter 37 > Section 654 § 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces.” Cornell University Law School (2008): n. pag. Web. 8 Sep. 2008.
