"Don't ask, don't tell," and why it sucks

The senate recently failed to pass a resolution that would have done away with the U.S. military's current policy on homosexual service members in the armed forces. This policy, known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ("DADT") purportedly allows closeted homosexuals to freely serve in the military. In essence, the military isn't to "ask" about a service member's sexual orientation, and the service member isn't to "tell" the military about it. Unfortunately, application of the policy often results in unfair outcomes. Let's go over some of the reasons this policy sucks.

Unfair Application

First, think about the spirit and meaning of the phrase "don't ask, don't tell." To me, someone who doesn't "ask" about something is someone who is disinterested in that something. They don't ask because they don't care to know. If I have a policy of not asking my friends about the regularity of their bowel movements, but then someone comes along telling me that my buddy Harold has a nasty case of the runs, I will look at this someone oddly and then tell them to get lost. What I won't do is grill that someone on all the details regarding Harold's alleged diarrhea. I won't call Harold's doctor to see if he's been prescribed anything for it. I won't raid his store receipts for pepto bismol purchases. I won't lurk outside his bathroom with a stethoscope in an attempt to verify the allegation of bowel irregularity. In short, I don't ask. I don't care. Leave me and my friends' bowel movements alone.

Okay, now let's look at the "don't tell" part of it. If my policy is to not tell you about some aspect of my life, then I'm going to keep it to myself. Nothing in the phrase "don't tell" implies that I'm going to discontinue doing the thing that I'm not telling you about. If I have a policy of not telling you about the regularity of my bowel movements, then I'm not going to go to the restroom and come back with a detailed report. This doesn't mean I'll stop having bowel movements. It just means I'm not going to talk about them with you. Does that make sense? If not, then sit down and let me describe my last bowel movement to you until it does.

So put the two components of the phrase together and what do we have? We've got the "not asking" party doing a good job of not caring and performing no act that would approximate an "inquiry" in any form. We've got the "not telling" party continuing on with his life and doing his best not to bring the subject to the attention of the "not asking" party. In ideal circumstances, then, life is good and we all get along like a bunch of care bears.

Unfortunately, ideal circumstances don't exist when it comes to the application of DADT. Instead of the military taking a very passive and disinterested attitude toward the orientation of its members, it actually tends to conduct "witch hunts" and pervasive investigations when allegations of homosexuality of service members are brought to its attention. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an investigation a form of inquiry? When you "inquire" as to something, isn't that another word for "asking?" So wouldn't an investigation be a violation of the military's "don't ask" policy? If so, how is it fair that service members suffer the consequences of the military's violation of its own policy?

"Hey but wait," you might say, "If someone is alleging the service member is homosexual, doesn't that mean they were probably doing something homosexual, and thus by their actions "telling" the military about their orientation?" Well, that depends. If the action was directed at another service member, or especially toward a commanding officer, then I would agree. But if instead they were simply seen entering a gay bar while off duty, or holding their partner's hand at the mall, then no, I don't believe that constitutes "telling" the military anything at all. That is non-assertive behavior. They're not trying to send a message to anyone, particularly their commanding officers. I don't believe DADT was ever supposed to mean "Oh and by "don't tell" what we really mean is stop being homosexual, mmkay?" If that was the case, then the military might as well have banned gays from serving altogether by asking about sexual orientation in the enlistment interview. Rather, I think the common sense understanding is "hey don't talk about it around us--it might make us uncomfortable." So unless the service member is marching through the barracks in a rainbow leotard singing Lady Gaga at the top of his lungs, I say just let him be and move on, business as usual.

Furthermore, the unfairness is compounded when the military conducts such investigative efforts against those who entered the military before DADT was enacted in 1994. One might argue (weakly) that service members entering the military after 1994 should know better than to let their sexual orientation be known, since they are on notice of the policy. But what about those who entered the military before that date? How can it be fair when they are discharged shortly before becoming eligible for retirement benefits, all because their superior officers indirectly got word of their homosexuality? Unfortunately, to date it appears that DADT has simply allowed the military to wield a club of discrimination with impunity.

Hey Macho Marine Man, You Gonna Cry?

Okay here's another thing I think about. Our service members are trained to deal with the harshest and most dangerous of circumstances. Nearly everyone who enlists knows they could be exposed to combat and ultimately lose their life in the service of their country. So honestly, do we really think these types of people can't stomach the fact that some guy in their unit might be gay? Are they worried the guy is going to cop a feel as they're raiding a terrorist hideout in Afghanistan?

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it. That's my point. I don't think battle-trained soldiers really care that much. If something like this does bother them, then I would submit that they are not cut out to be soldiers. How can such a one be expected to behave in the line of fire if he's worried about some dude doing a double-take in the shower? Please, if that's the case, grow the hell up.

If, for any reason, a gay service member does start causing problems by inappropriate touching, flirting, or otherwise, then such can and should be reported to a superior. I'm sure the military already has plenty of policies in place designed to deal with sexual harassment. I don't see why those policies couldn't be extended to apply with equal force to same-sex incidents.

An Uncomfortable Double Standard

With DADT in place, a huge double standard currently exists between heterosexual and homosexual service members. Heterosexual service members can talk about their love lives or marital and family relationships openly and without fear of reprisal. The homosexual service member, on the other hand, has to either stay silent on this subject, or lie outright. This can make even the most neutral inquiries stressful moments for gay service members: "Hey, what did you do this weekend?" Should he lie? Should he say it's none of their business? There's some unit cohesion and camaraderie for you! Under DADT, he certainly can't reveal that he spent time with his boyfriend or partner.

Gay service members probably already feel pressured to keep their personal lives under wraps due to the typical stigma that still exists toward homosexuality. DADT simply adds pressure to the situation, escalating a potentially awkward encounter into one that could be disastrous for the service member's career and livelihood. Conveniently, heterosexual service members face no such stigma or consequences.

Military Readiness, Unit Cohesion, and Troop Morale

Proponents of DADT claim that the policy is necessary to maintain military readiness, unit cohesion, troop morale, etc. The problem with these claims is that they're unsupported by any evidence. In fact, studies done in other countries' armed forces where gays are allowed to serve openly have revealed no negative effects on these and related factors. (Here are one, two, three, four, and five additional articles/studies done on the armed forces in other countries.) The Pentagon is currently conducting its own study, to be completed by December, and I fully expect it to return similar results.

LDS Perspective

If you aren't a Mormon, then you probably won't be interested in this part. But if you are, then I will show you how the LDS perspective on homosexuality would also call for a repeal of DADT.

Elder Dalin H. Oaks wrote an article for the Liahona in 1996, in which he stated the following:

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

The LDS perspective is that homosexuality is not a condition, but rather a sexual preference or tendency. We believe everyone is born into life with certain strengths and weaknesses. For some, these weaknesses may include a same-gender attraction which interferes with one's desire to pursue and create a traditional family. But as Elder Oaks is careful to point out, we do not consider homosexuality an irreversible "condition." The person who identifies himself as homosexual is not, in our view, forever consigned to that state. Rather, it is a weakness that can be overcome just like any other. Many people who formerly identified themselves as homosexuals, but have since adapted to a life of heterosexuality, stand as a witness to that fact.

In contrast, outside of LDS thought and other religious thought, homosexuality is seen as an irreversible--and often genetic--condition. Many gays declare that they were born that way and there is absolutely no changing it.

Now, DADT, as it is currently enforced, places emphasis on homosexuality as a condition. Absolutely no regard is made on the actual detrimental effects, if any, that a service member's homosexual orientation might have on the furtherance of the military's objectives. Rather, the military simply discharges the homosexual once his orientation is discovered. DADT sends the following message: "If you have this condition and make it known, then we don't want you here." It serves to emphasize the apparent "differences" between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Thus, no emphasis is placed on the service member's actual behavior. This takes the focus off homosexuality as a behavioral pattern and directs it to homosexuality as an irreversible condition, which is contrary to LDS thought.

Now, if we wanted to treat "homosexuality" as a sexual preference or behavioral tendency, rather than a condition, we would immediately repeal DADT (or, at least, apply it responsibly). This sends the following message: "We don't care what your sexual preferences are, as long as they don't hinder our mission or your ability to do your job." This puts less emphasis on how a person identifies himself, and more emphasis on how the person behaves, which is consistent with the principle that Elder Oaks taught in his message. Thus, if the world were to adopt LDS premises on homosexuality, we would expect a swift discontinuance of DADT.

Many members of the church are uncomfortable with all things "gay." In typical knee-jerk style, they automatically oppose the repeal of DADT, perhaps believing that keeping it in place serves some important purpose, and repealing it would be giving credence or support to the other side (the "enemy"). But ironically, we see that by juxtaposing our own belief system onto this debate, we end up siding with gay rights advocates (strange bedfellows indeed). DADT reinforces the notion that homosexuals are irreversibly "different" and should thus be treated differently in the military. In other words, it supports the proposition that homosexuality is a state of being, rather than a choice. Again, this is contrary to LDS thought.

Conclusion

There are plenty of good reasons to do away with DADT, whether you are religious or not. So far, I haven't heard any compelling arguments for keeping it in place.

And what happens if it is repealed? Will thousands of homosexual service members suddenly come bouncing out of the closet? Of course not. Any discomfort caused by inappropriate disclosure of sexual orientation will still exist. Social norms will still be in place discouraging that kind of conversation and behavior. The fact of the matter is homosexuals still face considerable stigma and won't have any incentive to becoming really open about their orientation. But at the same time, they won't be forced to living a secretive, double life, always fearful that if their superiors discover their orientation, they will be automatically discharged and lose their careers. So while they won't be encouraged to disclose their orientation, they also won't be penalized in the event it is discovered. That strikes me as abundantly fair and reasonable.