Why Did We Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

By Alicia Colon

I don't have many Facebook friends but the ones I do have are professionals and just plain smart so I asked all of them a question that had been puzzling me about Congress' rush to repeal the Don't ask, Don't Tell military policy on sexual identity - DADT.

I wrote: "Can someone explain DADT? Before it was enacted no gays could serve openly in the military. If DADT is repealed, doesn't it go back to that? Why is the Gay/Lesbian community happy about that? Is there something in the repeal legislation that changes that? Help. I need an explanation."

The esteemed James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal responded with this information: "Before Congress enacted DADT in 1993, the military ban on gays was a matter of executive discretion, so that President Clinton had the authority to reverse it by executive order. President Obama couldn't do that because it is now written into law... My reading is that it does in fact return to the status quo ante, so that barring future changes in the law, the military could reimpose the ban if its lifting proves disruptive. The bill does anticipate changing the UMCJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) however; see clause 2(a)2(D)."

Now I fully expect after this column is published to receive the usual emails calling me a homophobe. I've been called that ever since I went on record back in 1998 supporting the Boy Scouts of America for their hiring practices. This doesn't bother me because I'm used to strangers assuming they know how I feel about homosexuals.

Coming from the world of art and having worked in the airline industry which has a significant gay population, I hesitate to use the phrase, "some of my best friends are," but the truth is that most of my friends at one point were gay. Many have succumbed to the ravages of AIDS and thus their numbers have been severely reduced but none of them had ever indicated their desire to join the military so why was this such an urgent policy for Congress to address?

There can be no other answer than to presume that repeal of DADT is a prelude to allowing gays to marry how could we allow them to die for their country yet still be prevented from marrying? My Facebook challenge prompted the following response which represents the majority of those who supported the repeal:

"DADT requires that people hide their personal lives if they want to serve in the military. It means they have to lie about who they date and about their most important personal relationships. "Openly" means not lying, the way heterosexuals don't pretend to be homosexual. Do you really think mentioning my husband or (if I weren't married) the guy I went out with Saturday night means defining myself by my animal nature?...

As for your question, without the repeal of the law, there is no way to end the requirement that gays lie about their relationships in order to serve in the military. With repeal, it's possible and, indeed, likely in most branches (maybe not the Marines)."

Ah, the Marines. I asked my buddy, a former Marine, how he felt about the repeal. "I can't see how any gay would be able to handle the Marine language which is extremely hostile to gays and I can't imagine the Corps changing it. So what is it going to be now? Don't Ask, Don't tell - Just watch?"

As for my response to that woman's statement, I wrote: "I don't think it's helpful to compare our ordinary lives with the military. That is a whole different way of life with different protocols and standards. Behavior has to be more controlled because their lives are always at stake. Freedom and individuality is not necessarily the most important aspect of military life. It is discipline, honor and obeying commands. If that's a problem for some than this life is not for them."

Those advocates who were pushing and then praising the successful passage have no idea what life in the military is like and while there have been many gays who have served in the military honorably this repeal did not consider the damage that the repeal will do for those still serving.

One of my correspondents is a bisexual married man who went into the military for economic reasons and spent a year there as a closeted soldier. He expressed his difficulty understanding the DADT debate which ignored the consequences for those who wish to serve discretely. He claims that repeal of DADT takes away the only option a homosexual soldier has to safely leave the service if he/she finds it too difficult to serve.

But this is the problem with liberal ideology which rarely considers the reality facing individual human beings. They craft programs and legislature that in their own minds seem helpful and credible but which fail because people are not robots and some can react to these laws with a very negative result. Some conservatives, too, have this tendency to be ideological rather than acknowledging the human factor with all its frailties.

Case in point is the objection raised by some conservative groups about the inclusion of gay groups to CPAC 2011 (Conservative Political Action Conference).

The Family Research Council, Heritage Foundation, and American Family Association have cancelled their tickets claiming that conservatives and homosexuals cannot coexist in a movement predicated on social values. The committee is wise to ignore the fracas because this is a stupid position for these groups to take. CPAC is about furthering conservative political values not about demanding sainthood for those attending.

Perhaps I am of this mindset because I know many gays including my nephew who are decent, law-abiding citizens. We may not agree on their choice of lifestyle but they are fully aware of my positions on gay marriage and other social values. They are equally concerned with the direction this country is headed because of this administration and many of those boycotting groups would be surprised to learn that many are also very pro-life.

It is precisely this self-righteous attitude of these boycotters that makes it easy for liberals to mock us when a conservative is caught with his pants down.

As for me - I prefer the words of Christ - Judge not lest ye be judged.

Alicia Colon resides in New York City and can be reached at aliciav.colon@gmail.com and at www.aliciacolon.com