Military Law Review Article Dispels DADT Myths
An article by Major Laura Kesler in the Spring 2010 issue of the Military Law Review counters some of the more bizarre arguments used by opponents of repeal.
Major Kesler hits the nail on the head, beginning with her title, which reads in part, “Serving with Integrity.” She starts with the story of Sergeant Brian Hughes, a gay Army ranger who helped save Private First Class Jessica Lynch. He left the military because he no longer wanted to live a lie. Kesler discusses the losses brought about by DADT - “talent, experience, and fiscal losses.” She has an enlightening discussion on morality, religion, and sexual orientation. She backs up the argument that “DADT does not protect privacy.” She makes helpful analogies to the debate about integration. And more specifically, she addresses the supposed fears about the impact of repeal on recruiting, recalling a day when, Vice Admiral F.E.M. Whiting said, “The minute the negro is introduced into general service . . . [the] type of man that we have been getting for the last twenty years will go elsewhere....”
As Major Kesler concludes, “Societal views toward homosexuality have evolved since 1993, as have the views of many military and political leaders who implemented DADT that same year. As evidenced by our experience with racial integration in the 1950s, and the experiences of paramilitary organizations and foreign nations similar to ours that allow acknowledged GLBs to serve, America’s Armed Forces will successfully adapt to and benefit from their service. Furthermore, the quality and professionalism of our troops and our current force structure make America’s Armed Forces well-suited for the inclusion of acknowledged GLB troops. The service of leaders like LTC Fehrenbach is needed now more than ever. It is time to repeal the ban on GLB personnel in the military.”
You can read Major Kesler's article here and the article she counters here.
07-07-10 By Aaron Tax, SLDN Legal Director |
7 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.Terry ONeill in Fort Belvoir, VA on August 02, 2010 at 04.36 pm
After Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Resisting or Embracing Implementation?
by Major Terry O’Neill
Recently, U.S. Army Major Laura Kesler wrote an extremely well-written and extensively researched academic paper in the Military Law Review on the rationale for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).” She deftly covered the critical issues necessary for a discussion on the law’s possible repeal. Yet the issue is far more than an intellectual debate, but a policy change that could soon become reality. This blog posting is not meant to express an opinion on whether DADT should be repealed. Rather—in spite of contemporary media statements by active and retired generals and admirals opposed to repealing the law—history shows our nation’s military adheres to new orders directed by civilian leadership and faithfully implements such change.
There is no shortage of general officers adamantly and publicly opposed to lifting the ban.
Most prominently, on March of 2009, a group of over 1,500 retired generals and admirals sent an open letter to President Obama, urging him to keep DADT in place “as a matter of national security.”
Second, in March of 2007, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now retired USMC General Peter Pace unequivocally expressed his opinion against openly-gay military service. During a media interview with the Chicago Tribune, he said he believed homosexuality was immoral, and went on to make an analogy to adultery, stating “We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior [referring to adultery].”
Third, in March of 2010, current USMC Commandant General James Conway—a long-standing public supporter of retaining DADT—told Military.com he wouldn’t force heterosexual Marines to share a rooms with homosexuals.
Finally, in March of 2010, Lieutenant General Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of the U.S. Army Pacific, wrote a letter to the editor of Stars & Stripes referring to DADT repeal efforts as “ill-advised.” His letter implied homosexuality was unacceptable conduct, and he suggested that those who supported retaining DADT should tell their elected officials.
Although only Congress is empowered to repeal DADT, these fervent views by former and current generals and admirals might erroneously give the impression that if the law were to change, the Pentagon’s implementation would appear to be reluctant compliance, at best. But the history of our military’s experience in implementing new policy reflects otherwise—with leaders sometimes taking superfluous action to effect change.
At the close of the Civil War, after engaging in a strategy of “total war” ultimately resulting in the end of hostilities, General Ulysses S. Grant offered Confederate Army General Robert E. Lee generous terms of surrender. Even though the terms, as written, did not permit Confederate soldiers to keep their horses, General Grant nonetheless allowed Confederates to retain them for farming purposes after the war. As a further sign of General Grant’s desire to shift from war to reconciliation, upon learning General Lee’s men desperately needed food, General Grant provided enough rations to feed 25,000.
In 1948, after President Truman declared equal treatment for all serving in the armed forces, then Army Chief of Staff J. Lawton Collins progressively ordered integration, beginning in Korea and eventually spreading Army-wide by 1952.
And in 1963, the Alabama National Guard was federalized to prevent its own governor from refusing to follow court-ordered desegregation. When Governor George Wallace attempted to block African American students from attending the University of Alabama—and in doing so, stood in the doorway of the registrar’s office—President John F. Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard. The action ended in a dramatic stand-off as Alabama National Guard General Henry Graham respectfully approached Governor Wallace, saluted him, and asked him to step aside. The governor complied.
Today, although a vocal group of generals and admirals have earnestly expressed their personal views against repealing DADT, such public commentary should not be interpreted as an indication military leadership would resist implementation. As history illustrates, when the military receives new marching orders from civilian leadership, it is capable not only of implementing change, but also of embracing it.
***
Major Terry O’Neill is a student at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Belvoir, VA. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Bill Wayne on July 24, 2010 at 11.17 pm
By this logic should everyone be allowed in the military?
Is it small of us to not let kids under 17 in? Or are we being hateful for not letting suspected terrorists?
The point i’m making is, with the momentum the way it is, the law will be repealed. But then what is next? When will everyone be happy?
The answer is never, so let’s stop trying to make everyone happy and do what is right.
Dino in Washington, DC on July 13, 2010 at 11.17 am
Sorry Andrew, I stand corrected.
Andrewdb on July 12, 2010 at 11.53 pm
The caaflog.com blog is NOT the Military Law Review’s blog; it belongs to Dwight Sullivan, a military appellate lawyer.
Dino in Washington, D.C. on July 07, 2010 at 09.29 pm
I would encourage everyone to leave a comment in support of Major Laura Kesler’s article on the Military Law Review’s blog http://www.caaflog.com/2010/06/18/spring-2010-issue-of-military-law-review-online and offer due criticism of Major Sherilyn Bunn’s article filled with illogical fallacies and circular reasoning.
Steve on July 07, 2010 at 06.44 pm
It would create issues with people who want to transition while in the military. Having transgenders serve otherwise is really no different though.
And I think there are cases in foreign militaries of people transitioning while in. I recall reading about a case from France for example.
Really good article though. Extremely well sourced.
Arsen D in Washington State on July 07, 2010 at 11.07 am
It should be ended, yes, but I disagree with her stance that ending the ban on transgender people would muddy the waters. That is the same kind of approach that some people have to getting all other LGBT anti-discrimination legislation passed. It doesn’t work. What is more, the APA and the DSMV both say that being trans is no mental disease. The military should follow their lead.