Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell Is Not About Equal Rights

The effort to repeal DADT has very little to do with homosexuals serving their country openly. This is nothing more than a politically motivated effort by politicians and a minority of people to gain votes and push a social agenda.

For years, homosexuals have said they just want to be able to serve their country openly and proudly, all the while defying the very core values our military live by every day. They use terms like “equal rights” and “discrimination” to try to make their efforts sound legitimate, but they fail to understand one simple fact. No one has the “right to serve” in the military. Serving in the military is an honor and privilege. Compromises of core values are never accepted and everyone who serves understands it takes a commitment to a set of values that are rooted deep in tradition, honor and professionalism. Attempting to join the military should never be compared to the rights afforded to all Americans when seeking employment in the civilian world.

If repealing DADT were really about “equal rights” and removing “discrimination” then we would have to address a whole list of issues and not just homosexuals serving openly. The military discriminates against a number of groups and minorities in order to ensure good discipline, unit cohesion and effectiveness. If “equal rights” applied to the military, they would not be able to “discriminate” based on age, but they do every day. They would not be able to “discriminate” based on a person’s weight, but they discharge thousands of members every year for being overweight, even if they can pass their fitness test. They would not be able to “discriminate” based on what tattoos a person may have, but they deny enlistment to people every day because of tattoos. So you see, if repealing DADT was about “equal rights” and tearing down the walls of “discrimination”, we should be going after all the discriminators, but the recruit who is overweight and may have a few tattoos does not have the high paid lawyers and politicians in his pocket, like the gay rights groups. Therefore, he is just denied entry, while the homosexual is “discriminated” against and denied “equal rights”. It just seems wrong to cave into one group, while ignoring another group.

Unlike the civilian world, serving in the military is not just about being able to do your job. The military has to operate as a fully integrated team, not a social club where everyone does what he or she feels. Anyone who joins the military must be able to work and live as a team in close and often very difficult situations. This requires members to live by similar values and beliefs. Someone’s behavior cannot be allowed to cause a distraction or make other members feel uncomfortable. This is specifically why homosexuals are prohibited to serve openly. Homosexual behavior is not viewed by the majority of military members as being compatible with the military standards of conduct. So for homosexuals to claim they are being discriminated against I say this is not about you; it is about what is good for the military and our national security.

However, in an effort to be fair, let us think about this for minute. If DADT is repealed, what kind of living conditions will we force our military to live in? Will the military be forced to have facilities (showers, bathrooms, barracks and tents) for four or five different groups, or maybe just one? Will a minority looking for acceptance of their behavior, trample the rights of the majority to feel comfortable where they live and work? How will bi-sexual and transgender people serve? Will the transgender man be allowed to dress as a woman soldier one day, use the women’s facilities, and then dress as a male soldier the next? How many heterosexual Americans would really feel comfortable living and showering with known homosexuals? Why in the hell should our military have to deal with this type of social experimentation during wartime?

As mentioned above, repealing DADT is not about “equal rights” or discrimination against a minority. The military discriminates against a number of groups every day, but we never hear anyone complaining or any lawmaker trying to make a stand for them.

Therefore, with all politics aside, our political and military leaders need to address the repeal of DADT from the point of how would the repeal improve or strengthen our military and not from a perspective of how we can help a minority with their social agenda. If there is not hard quantifiable evidence that repealing DADT will significantly improve military effectiveness, then repealing the policy is not an option. To repeal the policy without that evidence would be nothing less than treason.