Last week, I received a phone call from my friend David. He is currently a Marine, sent back to serve in Iraq for the third time since he enlisted about three years ago. We discussed just about everything you can think of, including the fact that he thought he saw two of the men in his troop kiss. When I asked him how he felt about that, he paused before giving me a surprising answer, "I could honestly care less. There are a bunch of gay dudes out here."After I hung up the phone, my mind began to wander. Then I remembered an article I had read for a class last semester concerning the issue of gays in the military. The article "Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable" was written by the late Senator Barry M. Goldwater. Personally, I feel that in light of the substantial and pressing issues involved in the national security and foreign policy of the United States, the issue of whether gays should be allowed to serve in the military isn't really one that deserves serious attention from Congress. Nevertheless, I recall that with the election of a Democratic-led Congress, some members called for changes in the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy to allow Gays to serve openly in the military.
Goldwater's article was interesting to me because he made various claims in support of homosexual military service, including the assertion that everyone knows gays have historically served in the military since the time of Julius Caesar, and that they will continue to do so. Although some might view this as a broad generalization, I think that the fact that we have implemented a policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" emphasizes the probability that the military contains various forms of sexual orientation. The part that stuck out the most, however, was his arguement that the military has thrown away half-a-billion dollars trying to find those identified as being gay, so they can kick them out. Then, there was General Peter Pace who argued that we should uphold the ban because gay behavior is immoral and, in allowing it to be expressed openly, the military would be allowing immoral activity. While Pace may be correct in assuming that not all people are tolerant of the gay community, and that allowing gays to serve openly could cost the military a signficiant number of recruits in terms of those who don't want to live alongside homosexuals, my friend David reassured me that his comments constitute a minority view among those serving in the military.
It is my duty to express my personal view on this issue. Under such a policy where one is asked to leave the military if they find out that that individual is gay, many straight soldiers could claim that they are gay in an effort to receive an honorable discharge, allowing them to end their military service and go home early. This policy is costly in terms of both money and workforce. The military spends millions recruiting new soldiers and training them only to discharge a significant number due to their choice of sexual orientation. Considering the fact that our military is spread thinly, we shouldn't turn away qualified recruits on the ground that they are openly gay.
In a society that promotes equality, this is a step backward. As Goldwater pointed out, both blacks and women were eventually allowed to serve in the military, why should gays be any different?
photo credit: http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/Q/f/1/homophobe_general.jpg
