Collegiate Times

However, if it’s not a constitutional right, then it should also not be a constitutional obligation, and as accounts of World War I and II will tell you, homosexuality was overwhelmingly tolerated as long as people were needed.

Mind you this was at a time when homosexuality as a whole was reason enough to exclude one from service. So again, we see the hypocrisy of the military and the fair-weather attitude it takes regarding its own policies.

But because volunteers were short and manpower was in demand, it did not matter if you were gay or straight, and morale didn’t seem to be an issue. But all of a sudden, when its needs came to an end, homosexuality was an issue again.

It should be recognized that Austria, Belgium, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, the U.K., Sweden and South Africa all allow gay people to serve openly in the military.

The last time I checked, none of these militaries fell into disarray or lost any great number of valued servicemen when the policies were enacted.

It is also of note that multiple officers, all of whom served for decades in the armed forces, were uncovered and exposed by nosey civilians who violated the personal privacy of the officers. The officers were released from service on what was usually no more than hearsay and conjecture for committing the broad and ambiguous sexual acts defined under chapter 37. These are men and women who served their country, made no public issue of their sexuality and were decorated upstanding officers. The military that employed them gave them dishonorable discharges and made certain they could no longer access any of their benefits. However, this is hardly a new practice.

After reading these regulations and comparing some of the sections, there can be no doubt of the unfounded discriminatory nature that “don’t ask, don’t tell” was built upon and the profound lack of evidence that was used to substantiate it. There is no basis for homosexuality diminishing morale, only fear. There is no basis for the destruction of group cohesion based solely on homosexuality, just paranoia, and there is something disappointing and shameful in the fair-weather attitude of the enactment and pursuit of these exclusionary policies. As a result, I have trouble looking upon this military institution with the same veneration I had before.

It gives me doubt as to the kind and types of liberties it wishes to protect.

Continue Reading:  « Previous123

A version of this article appeared in the Mar 18 issue of the Collegiate Times.