HuffPo: Killing DADT is the Honorable Thing
Killing DADT is the Honorable Thing
HUFFINGTON POST
December 1, 2009
What do Turkey and the United States have in common? Well, they are both original signatories to the NATO treaty. But they share something else. The United States and Turkey stand alone among the original signatories to that treaty in banning gay men and women from serving openly in their militaries.
In Turkey and in the United States the official stance towards homosexuality is to be ashamed of it, or afraid of it, or both. Otherwise, why would the United States have a federal law that says it's okay to be gay in the military if you tell no one, do nothing, and keep that closet door firmly shut. In other words, if you're gay pretend you're not. Stay ashamed and stay quiet.
The difference is that parts of Turkey, which didn't exist as a nation until 1923, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and the war for independence that followed, remain rooted in a tribalism whose values clash with what we like to think of as the values of the modern world. The founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk, was an admirer of the Enlightenment and fought until his death in 1938 to turn Turkey into a modern, democratic, and secular nation-state. It has been a long and still only partially successful struggle.
It would not please Ataturk to know that "honor killings" still exist in his country. The New York Times reported last week that one took place 16 months ago in Istanbul. Prosecutors say a father from a wealthy Kurdish family in southeastern Turkey traveled more than six hundred miles from his village to hunt down his only son at his apartment building in Istanbul and to fire five shots into the young man as he was going out for ice cream. The son was gay, the honor of the family was therefore sullied. To restore the family's honor, a male member of the family must kill him. It's the honorable thing to do, even though his parents were said to adore their son.
This is the first reported honor killing of a gay man in Turkey. That fate is usually reserved for women in the family for looking at a boy the "wrong" way, for having sex with another man inside or outside of marriage. Dan Bilefsky reported in the Times last week that a recent government survey estimates that one person in Istanbul dies every week as a result of honor killings. The United Nations says that globally such killings claim five thousand lives each year. It is not known how many go unpunished. In Turkey, if the crime becomes known the punishment is life imprisonment. The father of the young man, who was a straight-A physics student, is being tried in absentia. He is believed to be hiding in northern Iraq.
A Turkish sociologist who studies honor killings noted that "tribal Kurdish families that kill daughters perceived to have dishonored them publicize the murders to help cleanse their shame." The sociologist told Bilefsky that "gay honor killings remained underground because a homosexual not only brought shame to his family, but also tainted the concept of male identity upon which the community's social structure depended."
"Until now," the sociologist said, "gay honor killings have been invisible because homosexuality is taboo."
I am not aware of honor killings in the United States, although men and women in and out of the military have been killed because they are perceived to be gay, lesbian, or transgendered. Still, there is an unsettling parallel between Turkey and the United States in their attitudes toward gays in the military: they don't exist.
Now everyone knows that we do in fact exist, that some of us have been or are in the military, and some are serving openly. So why the ban? Shame, fear, ignorance, a military culture of chest-thumping machismo, a misplaced sense of honor. How else can we explain why sixteen years ago our own government passed a law requiring gays and lesbians in effect to go underground to serve their country? All those who wear the uniform must be prepared to give up their lives if necessary to preserve the freedom of their fellow citizens to be themselves--but if they are gay the country they are fighting for does not allow them the freedom to be themselves.
That is what is shameful. That is what is truly disgraceful and dishonorable. In the United States we need to distinguish ourselves from countries, like our NATO ally Turkey, who continue officially to regard homosexuality as shameful. As do we. Shame and ignorance and fear lie at the root of our discriminatory policy of "don't ask, don't tell," just as in Turkey.
Twenty-seven other countries now welcome gays and lesbians into their armed forces. This week President Obama is asking some of those countries--Australia, Britain, France, Germany, Canada--to stick with us in Afghanistan. Does anyone care if the soldier or Marine beside you who is trying to protect you is of a different sexual orientation than your own? Do you care if the Navy Seal who saved your life is gay or straight? I don't think so, and I think that has been documented time and again. Good order, discipline, unit cohesion, and morale depend on strong leadership and a clear mission, not on anyone's sexual orientation.
Someone has to take command of getting "don't ask, don't tell" off the books. Ultimately, President Obama is the leader, but only Congress can repeal the law that Congress enacted. They might finally do it if President Obama includes repeal of DADT in the Defense budget he sends to Congress early next year.
The President can and should do just that.
12-01-09 By Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN Executive Director |
27 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.Sharon on December 06, 2009 at 12.00 pm
Jake:
I just want to ask you 1 question. If you had a son or daughter that a a very early age in life decided he or she wanted to be a Marine, wouldn’t you be proud? What happend if later in their life they came to you and confessed they were gay/lesbian? Would you still feel the same way about your son/daughter? or would you disown them completely? Who am I or anyone else in world to decide what true happiness is for someone? I love my daughter very much, and I am very proud of her. Her dream was to become a Marine, and now that dream is not going to become a reality for her unless this law is overturned.
Jake Wright on December 04, 2009 at 04.09 pm
I hope so Chris and i don’t doubt it that the professionalism that my fellow soldiers hold will stay with them if DADT is repealed
Chris in Fort Worth, TX on December 04, 2009 at 12.35 am
Jake
I feel and others do to that the isolated incident that you described would be just that if DADT is repealed and I’m with you on making sure that everyone is proteced and treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve as a professional member of our Armed Forces. . If the military is given an order to do away with DADT you can bet your trusty M16 that they will carry out the order professionally. I also don’t think that their would be this massive outing by all the gay and lesbian troops if DADT is repealed. The high standards of professionalism that the military prides itself on would prevail and everyone gay and straight would live up to those standards.
Jake Wright on December 03, 2009 at 01.37 pm
Yes i would like to get rid of that loophole because iv served with cowards that said they were gay and were sent home and i know for a fact they were straight. Im not sure though about an uproar not happening. I do know fellow soldiers who hate the idea of gays being beside them and that incident i witnessed with the gay that was brutally beat, id just hate for that to happen alot more
Chris in Fort Worth, TX on December 03, 2009 at 08.28 am
Jake, First off my arguments foe repealing DADT pretty much mirror Rich’s and most of the problems I hear about DADT come from gay or lesbian servicemembers partners.
Second, after my first tour of duty in Thailand I returned in 1974 to Korat where a group of us opened a long-range radar facitlity. I worked for a gay SMSGt and before I rotated back to the states a gay Ist Lt. took over as chief controller of the Rapcon. It was pretty obvious that these two individuals were gay and it was no big deal. Together we launched the aircraft involved in our mission to evacuate Americans from Saigon and Cambodia at the end of the Vietnam War. Again their presence in our unit had no bearing on unit cohesion or anything.
Your points about protection for gay troops under DADT is well taken however if ALL servicemembers act PROFESSIONALLY like they are supposed to incidents like this shouldn’t happen. The UCMJ has rules of conduct that ALL servicemembers have to abide by and DADT is simply obsolete and was when it was passed.
On a sidenote DADT has been used by straight servicemembers to get out of the military and has been used vindictively in divorce cases etc. Wouldn’t you want to close that loophole?
Rich on December 03, 2009 at 06.54 am
Fortunately, we know from the experience of all of our allies that lifted gay bans in recent years that there will be no uproar. There was no uproar in Canada and no uproar in Great Britain. There is no uproar among our own troops that fight side-by-side in Iraq and Afghanistan with gay and lesbians who join them in our coalition forces. For any undisciplined servicemember inclined to cause an uproar, we have a system called non-judicial punishment to deal with it.
Jake Wright on December 03, 2009 at 01.44 am
Alright Joe i have no problem with gay people and myself im not sure if id feel uncomfortable or not in certain situations because i havent been in any. my argument wasnt over that, it was that a problem might erupt if dadt was repealed. 37% of the military are opposed of it being repealed and if it is repealed then those 750000 plus men and women might cause an uproar. Its just safer to keep it in place
Joe in Defense Language Institute on December 02, 2009 at 10.59 pm
Jake if you are uncomfortable around gay folks the best way to cure that is to get to know a few quality ones. Also please check out some of the rhetoric recorded from back when the argument on integration of black people in the military was occurring. You might find it shocking to see how close some of your own arguments mirror those from half a century ago. Anyway, I will not believe for a moment that our military cannot handle the gay issue. If England can do it, then so can we. In fact we should be ashamed to claim to be such a beacon for liberty and freedom yet drag behind all of our closest allies in gay rights. Besides, DADT really does degrade our national security. Trust me, I’m in a position to know.
Jake Wright on December 02, 2009 at 08.07 pm
you like it do you ATFSgt? Well i got plenty fuckin more if you wanna keep it up
Bill on December 02, 2009 at 07.28 pm
The roots of homophobia in masculine psychology and many cultures are complex, but in many men resides a level of anxiety about masculinity that produces a murderous rage. When institutionalized by religious fundamentalism, “honor killings” in some non-Christian cultures, or the same under different names in western society, become real.
As for DADT and America’s being an anachronism in NATO, last night’s West Point speech by our President announcing a need for more troops in Afghanistan would have been the perfect time to courageously announce a stop-loss suspension of DADT pending Congressional action. Retaining the tens of thousands of current LGBT servicepersons and recruiting thousands of new LGBT Americans waiting in the wings would be the easiest way to increase numbers in our services. Of course the announcement would have created a homophobic firestorm, but likely it would have been buried by current Congressional disputes about the war and how to pay for it. By 2010 the DADT law would be shown to be so silly as to become boring. It would just die on the vine. If I had to bet, had the President suspended DADT in front of West Point cadets, he would have received a resounding cheer. Youth, even at West Point, don’t live in terror of LGBT. Generally, these days they just don’t give a damn.
AF_TSgt on December 02, 2009 at 04.16 pm
LOL@ Jake’s extensive vocabulary
Jake Wright on December 02, 2009 at 02.25 pm
Chris, no i did not get educated by your retarted arguments. My point when i first comment was that DADT should stay to keep those who choose that lifestyle a little safer. In my platoon one man came out and before he was discharged he got the fuckin shit beat out of him by 3 men in my barracks. So go ahead and repeal DADT and i promise more shit like that will happen. And for the bitch AtFSgt if you were in front of me when you said i was scared you would disappear forever trust me. Dont fucking talkin shit. My argument in the first place was never about fuckin showers that was only an example. Why dont you fucking pay attention
AF_TSgt on December 02, 2009 at 01.14 pm
I’m sure the same, ignorant argument was used regarding desegregation of the military in 1948 when President Truman’s Executive Order 9981 ordered the integration of the U.S. Military. There were many “Jakes” long before the ones that blog against equal rights on LGBT-related sites. Truth is: DADT’s days are numbered. The Jakes of our nation are scared, but rest assured, it will be ok.
Mike Gorman in Stockton, Ca on December 02, 2009 at 12.11 pm
Kick Turkey out of Nato. They can’t abide by the human rights convention, then fine. I’m starting to grow rather restless without hearing anything actually moving towards the end of DADT. We all took oaths of service and it’s very insulting people like Donelly still run around trying to compromise our national security. Mr. President, I’ve been waiting five years; and I’m still waiting for change. The end of DADT, and the freedom to allow women into combat rolls.
Chris in Fort Worth, TX on December 02, 2009 at 09.25 am
Rich, Thank You for your service.
I echo your sentiments completely and somehow we said the same thing in our posts. I hope Jake got a little educated on the REAL problems with DADT and can look beyond the petty shower thing which is really imaterial to the issue.
A same-sex parner of a servicemember told me that he feels left out when it comes to sharing in his partners life because of DADT.
I have brought this and all your comments up in my visits to my members of Congress in an effort to get this discrimantory law repealed.
Chris in Fort Worth, TX on December 02, 2009 at 09.07 am
I just want to add one more comment. I wish to thank all the present and former servicemembers who have commented on this for their service to their country.
I also travel, and I ask servicemembers about their attitudes on repeal of DADT and my polling pretty much matches all the national poliing on this subject. Close to 80 percent of the answers I get are in favor of repeal. One active duty TSgt told me point blank “The milittary just needs to catch up to the rest of society”
The DADT law is obsolete. the UCMJ has rules that govern conduct for gays and straights alike and bad conduct ought to be punished not who a person is.
Chris in Fort Worth, TX on December 02, 2009 at 08.56 am
Jake, First off I’m a Vietnam Era USAF Veteran. Yeah we had open showers in Basic Training, So, I frankly didn’t know who was gay, straight, or whatever. We barely had time to take a shower for that matter. To me this is such an imaterial issue to DADT.
Here is the real problem with DADT that exists now and before the law was put into place and it’s something to think about.
As was with Vietnam, we have troops deployed in two wars now. Some for two or more tours. Troops whether straight or gay have love ones back home. Straight troops have really no problem communicating with their wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends, etc. Because of DADT, the gay troop has to lie, make up opposite sex names in emails, letters, etc. and hide this family stuff from his or her peers when everyone else has it out in the open.
When I was stationed in Thailand during Vietnam I saw people have marital problems (Receive Dear John Letters) and all sorts of stuff requiring counselling and sometimes a flight back to the US. I’m sure the same things are happenning today. Now the straight servicemember can obtain counselling etc for his or her problems but because of DADT the gay or lesbian servicemember cannot.
If a gay or lesbian servicemember is injured and requires hospitalization can the sevicemembers partner visit them in a military hospital or call them etc without arousing suspicion under DADT?
If a servicemember is killed while on duty two servicemembers from the respective service branch pay their respects by visiting the next-of-kin and relaying the bad news. Shouldn’t gay or lesbian servicemembers be able to list their partners as next-of-kin and be given the same dignity and respect if the unfortunate happens?
I want to close this by talking about an actual scenerio that happenned while I was serving in Thailand. I was an Air Traffic Controller assigned to mobile Rapcon unit.
It was August 22, 1972. The flying weather was crummy,(low clouds and light rain). An F4 Phantom pilot calls on the radio and says he’s been hit over North Vietnam and his aircraft is severely battle damaged andd needs to land. Another F4 pilot calls and says that the damaged jet doesn’t have an airspeed indicator and wants help in locating the damaged aircraft so they can join up and land in formation with the good jet acting as the airspeed for th damaged one. To make this story short my Approach Controller joind them up in bad weather and I worked them down a radar final in the same crummy weather. The damaged jet by the way had a large section of the vertical stabilizer rudder and right side horizontal stabilizer missing and had a big hole blown under the cockpit. The pair of jets were landed successfully in about ten minutes. Now tell me did anyones race, creed, color, political beliefs or sexual orientation even enter into the equation in the successful completion of the mission or so called unit cohesion or whatever in this scenerio? It did not then and does not today.
Rich on December 02, 2009 at 08.29 am
DADT keeps discrimination and distraction away from our soldiers?
Would you be distracted if you had to wonder how your same-sex partner would ever be notified in the event of your death or injury on the battlefield? Would you be distracted on a long deployment knowing that your loved one doesn’t have access to the spouse clubs and support groups that keep other soldiers’ families in touch with your unit? Do you think it’s discriminatory for military spouses to have access to base exchanges, commissaries, and family services while your loved one is shut out? Do you think it’s discriminatory that gay and lesbian servicemembers are barred from getting married or entering civil unions with their loved ones, even in states where these unions are legal? Would you be distracted with having to come up with made up excuses and lies for what you did on the weekend, why you are showing up at the annual Christmas party alone, who your “roommate” is, and every other imaginable scenario that confront gay and lesbian servicemembers everyday? Would you be distracted to attend the regularly scheduled award/promotion/retirement ceremony and watch as the spouse and family of an honored soldier is thanked and also honored for their sacrifice when you know that your loved one will never get the opportunity to be recognized for sacrifices during your career? Do you think it is discriminatory for President Obama to sign an executive order allowing military spouses to maintain their home state of residency when they PCS across the country with their soldier, but the same benefit is not afforded to same-sex partners who struggle with the burdens of PCS moves as well?
We spend billions of dollars each year to support the “military family,” but their are 65,000 members of this family and their loved ones who are excluded. That is a discrimination and distraction far, far worse than any 2 minutes spent in a shower on a day in boot camp.
Jake Wright on December 02, 2009 at 01.57 am
Joe, it was not even my argument about the showers. All i said was that myself would feel uncomfortable if a person was open about be homosexual especially in the showers. I got so hot on that topic cause dickface up there Rich called me out on NOT being in the service which i am. And you may be right i my opinion may change, but i think that it is just best to keep DADT in place to keep alot of discrimination and also distraction away from our fellow soldiers. No offence
Joe in Defense Language Institute on December 01, 2009 at 09.36 pm
I have served quietly for 10 years in the military and am 100% gay. And yes Jake, I have shared in an open shower as that seems to be the litmus test for proof of service around these parts. Why you are so fixated on this particular issue is beyond me. As a homophobic person I think you would find it in your benefit to know who is “the gay” so you can be sure and cover up your junk and glare menacingly when they come around. I think if we hung out for a while and you got to know me your opinion would change on all of this.
Jake Wright on December 01, 2009 at 08.27 pm
In fact Rich, im fucking calling you out right now! I say you never in your entire fucking life have served our country! Because if you have, then you would know that btc or mct have a bay shower! When i went through, 75 people had to share an open shower. Maybe 5 or 6 went in while everyone else waited for their turn. So i just want to let you know that you are very wrong and retarted
Jake Wright on December 01, 2009 at 08.21 pm
Well Rich, i dont know or really care where you’ve served but during bct the showers are shared. Now you might be lying when you say you’ve served since you’ve never shared the showers, but you are highly mistaken in saying that. And what “myth” might you be talking about? Iv heard no “myth” about showers in the service. I think it just might be your homosexual subconscience. And for you fucking ignorant information for calling me the fuck out and saying iv never served just fuckin shows how fucking moronic you are. Wow you can say you’ve serve for 18 years but who the fuck really knows! Dont ever fucking say someone hasnt served unless you know for fucking sure!
Rich on December 01, 2009 at 07.22 pm
While the basic premise of this article is correct—DADT is a dishonorable law—the prescription for repeal is wrong. SLDN advocated for DADT repeal in last year’s defense budget and were blatantly ignored by the Obama administration and Congress. I have zero confidence that the 2011 defense authorization will yield any different results. It is extremely unlikely that Congress will vote for a DADT repeal, in any sort of bill, one month prior to mid-terms (that’s when the authorization comes up for a final vote each year).
I would expect that SLDN advocate for immediate repeal. How the President and Congress decide to enact that repeal is up to them. There are a number of avenues for immediate repeal in both the executive and legislative branch. SLDN should not advocate for any solution that results in months (or years) more of waiting. Servicemembers have already waited through 8 years of a Republican presidency where repeal was impossible. Congress and the President will be happy to continue shifting the timetable further and further to the right as long as the advocacy groups and voters don’t demand anything more immediate. Rep. Barney Frank promises a repeal in next year’s defense authorization but doesn’t mention that he’s not on the House Armed Services Committe that presides over that legislation. Neither Armed Service Committee chairman in the House or Senate has made any statement indicating that the defense budget for 2011 will include DADT repeal language.
SLDN should not be appeasing a reluctant Congress by supporting measures to further delay the end of DADT. I expect more forceful advocacy that demands an immediate addressal of this issue. If the defense budget is the avenue for formal repeal, there are certainly interim measures that can be taken to pave the way. An executive order or Congressional action to suspend enforcement of DADT could happen today. The DOD promised a review of the policy to make it more “humane” several months ago, but have yet to produce anything to date. The longer we accept these delaying tactics, the less likely we are going to see any meaningful change. Next year’s mid-terms are likely to be a referendum on incumbents due to the poor economy and Democratic majorities in Congress are at risk. The window for DADT repeal is closing—stop appeasing the politicians and demand their immediate action on this issue!
Rich on December 01, 2009 at 07.06 pm
I’ve served in the military for 18 years, including tours in the combat zone. I have never once been in a situation where I had to shower with another servicemember. But thanks to folks like Jake, who likely never served a day in his life, the myth of the military as one giant shower room continues.
As for being uncomfortable around my fellow servicemembers, I’m usually pretty uncomfortable around the ones who are lying and deceitful. Unfortunately, Congress requires gay and lesbina servicemembers to lie and deceive as a matter of law.
Jake Wright on December 01, 2009 at 05.01 pm
Oh and concerning the article, no the President shouldn’t do just that. I can guarantee right now that if gays start opening up in the military, things will quickly and violently change for the worse. If taking showers with other guys isn’t bad enough in the barracks, taking one with a gay is rediculous and i fear for that soldiers life if he were to openly announce he’s gay to his fellow soldiers in such a situation.
Jake Wright on December 01, 2009 at 04.51 pm
No not very well said Sharon. Our military is know for their toughness and strict heterosexuality! If gays openly came out there would be enormous amount of turmoil. I speak for myself as well as others when i say i would feel extremely uncomfortable in the barracks with a homo. Soldiers would be more focused on scrutinizing gays rather than focusing on what they are really there for and that is to serve our country. Gays should feel lucky, before 1993 they weren’t allowed in at all! I dont mind fighting next to a gay, i just dont want to hear about it or witness it.
Sharon Flanigan in Pennsylvania on December 01, 2009 at 04.18 pm
Very well said. What more does our country need in order to change this ignorant law.. We see signs all over about stopping racial hate, but here is our own government slapping us in the face with “it’s ok to be gay or lesbian, but please, while you are serving out country, pretend your not.” Unreal!!