END OF DECADE OLD 'DON'T ASK' POLICY

USATODAY
11/25/2003

A bad policy in 1993 is worse now when we are in desperate need of servicemen and servicewomen. ... Powerful reasons exist for giving everyone a chance to serve without fear of discrimination.

Former Army lieutenant colonel Steve Loomis is a decorated Vietnam combat veteran who was awarded the Purple Heart. But his valor didn't stop the Army from throwing him out in 1997 for being gay. Just eight days short of having 20 years of service to his country, Loomis lost a pension worth about $1 million.

Loomis fell victim to the "don't ask, don't tell" law signed by President Clinton on Nov. 30, 1993. The 10-year-old statute lets the military discriminate against servicemembers based on sexual orientation, unless they keep their private lives absolutely secret.

Loomis wasn't asked, and he didn't mean to tell, but he was discharged anyway. During the investigation of an arson fire at his Texas house, police found a videotape of Loomis engaging in consensual homosexual sex. They gave the Army the tape, and a board sent Loomis packing.

"Don't ask, don't tell," a bad policy in 1993, is worse now when we are in desperate need of servicemen and servicewomen. The law is based on the vague and unsupportable rationale, as stated in the U.S. Code, that gays "would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline." The real risk is a weakened defense as we add to the dispirited ranks of the 9,000 servicemembers who have been fired for being gay since the statute was passed.

Ten years after that law, President Bush and the Republican Congress, mindful of the right wing, seem content with the status quo, despite the fact that the Pentagon fires two to three highly qualified servicemembers every day for being gay. Have they forgotten the words of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism? He said, "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country; you just need to shoot straight."

Powerful reasons exist for giving everyone a chance to serve without fear of discrimination.

* Constitutionality. Every constitutional challenge to the law has failed.

Courts repeatedly have invoked the doctrine of military deference in letting the law stand. But that may be about to change. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Lawrence vs. Texas holding that a state sodomy law violated the constitutional right to privacy. The decision, says Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Service Members Legal Defense Network, "is very broad in its assertion that the federal government has no place in the private lives of its citizens. It's logical that that decision should extend to the very men and women who protect those freedoms." Loomis and at least four others have filed individual suits with hopes that the ruling in the Lawrence case will extend to the military.

* Military readiness. The ban's supporters argue that allowing gays to serve openly would harm unit cohesion and cause an exodus of heterosexual soldiers. The Family Research Council has said that "homosexual behavior is discordant with the health, safety, cohesion and morale of the military."

But it is the policy itself that has posed the threat to the military.

"Don't ask, don't tell" has led the military to discharge servicemembers who are necessary to national security and military operations. For instance, since 9/11, the Army has scrambled to remedy the drastic shortage of Arabic linguists. Yet in November 2002, it was reported that the Army had discharged nine linguists for being gay. Six were specialists in Arabic.

Our allies aren't making the same mistake. Most of our coalition partners in Operation Enduring Freedom have lifted their bans on homosexuals in the military. Studies of the Canadian, British and Israeli military by The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California-Santa Barbara indicate that the change in those militaries was a "non-event," without impact in the field or on troop retention. These findings mirror those of a Rand Corp. study of seven countries commissioned by the Pentagon in 1993.

Separate studies by the Naval Postgraduate School and the University of Texas show that anti-gay attitudes in the military have been steadily declining. If anything is hurting unit cohesion, it is the lying and hiding required by the current policy. In the words of a retired Navy judge advocate general, rear admiral John Hutson, the law is a "charade" that "demeans the military as an honorable institution."

* Public support. Most Americans want to end discrimination against gays in the military. When asked in 1977 by Gallup whether homosexuals should be hired for positions in the armed services, 51% of respondents said that they should. When asked the same question this May, 80% said "yes."

* Strengthening democracy. There was a time, just over a half-century ago, when racial segregation in the military made a mockery of democratic principles. The same holds true for discrimination against homosexuals. Eleanor Roosevelt, speaking of civil rights, said, "We have long held in this country that ability should be the criterion on which all people are judged. We must come to recognize this criterion in dealing with all human beings and not place any limitations upon their achievements except such as may be imposed by their own character and intelligence."

There's only one good way to celebrate the 10-year anniversary of this law: by ending the discrimination against American sons and daughters who are protecting us everywhere, everyday and who also happen to be gay.

Here are some of Robin's articles:

CHECK IN
WITH ROBIN
Visit her blog
for the latest
from the
author and
speaker.

WANT TO SEE ROBIN IN ACTION?
Watch video of
her discussing how to Take Action in your life.