Green Room

They Already Serve

posted at 1:22 pm on May 14, 2010 by

You think you know what’s coming.

Of course, this post is about gays in the military.  But its point is that even with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) in place, gays already serve.

That’s right.  They are not prevented from serving by DADT.  They are not prevented from being gay by DADT.

They are prevented from telling by DADT.  And the military is prohibited from asking.

What will change if DADT is repealed is the “telling” part.  What proponents of repeal want you to believe is that this will mean no more than that quietly gay servicemembers will be able to mention their partners at work and maybe bring them to command events – and who could be scared of that?

But that’s not what telling will mean.  It will mean what it has always meant in US society:  complaint and litigation.

Most gay servicemembers probably would not do anything very different from what they do now.  Many of us have been proud to serve with them, and haven’t cared what their sexual orientation was.

But it doesn’t take more than a few to cause disruptions, narrow the scope of command prerogative and discretion for the worse, and menace the civil rights of others in uniform.  All it takes is one “case.”  And there will be more than that.

Ask yourself this.  Should military families be forced to live in housing, shop at commissaries, and use recreation facilities where gay men, when they’re out of uniform, hold hands and kiss in public, demand to hold gay events, or demand gay-themed products or advertising?  Don’t you have the option to not do that, in your civilian life?  Do you understand that for many military families, exercising that option is either literally impossible – depending on where they are stationed – or at least financially so?

Ask yourself this.  Should soldiers in a unit be required to show support for Gay Pride Month, at the risk of being accused of creating a hostile work environment if they don’t?  Because they will be asked to do just that.  Other federal agencies already celebrate Gay Pride Month.  DOD will begin doing so immediately on repeal of DADT.

Ask yourself this.  Should unit leaders – COs, XOs, command senior NCOs – be required, as a matter of professional promotability and fitness for leadership, to affirm a positive view of homosexuality?  Should they be denied promotion and higher leadership positions if they cannot, in good conscience, agree to a formulaic endorsement? If you believe these should be professional criteria, why?  What is your rationale for this as a military requirement?

Because this will happen.  It will happen even if the initial implementation of a DADT repeal specifically states that it won’t.  Attrition through lawsuit and Congressional witch-hunt will take care of that.  Military policy will be aligned to avert trouble from political activists – as we have seen already.

See here and here for longer pieces, with complete documentation, justifying these predictions.

Remember, the question is not whether gays can do the same job as straights.  They are already doing it.  That question has been the principal one relating to women in the service, and it’s why women are still excluded from some military jobs.

The question is not whether gays have full equality as humans.  Of course they do.  The question is not even whether straights can “stand” to serve alongside them, although since the divisive issue is sexual orientation and expression of it, there is more justification for concern about that than there was when the issue was the segregation of blacks into separate military units and the limitation of their eligibility for occupational specialties.  We as a nation rightly decided that the military would not cater to militarily meaningless prejudices about skin color and race.  Expression of sexuality – not “orientation,” per se, but expression of it, which is what is inherently at issue here: that is a different matter.

But ultimately, the question, in the case of gays, is not whether people should be admitted to the military, it’s whether the military’s culture should change.  And as distasteful as it is for many of us vets to think of soldiers or sailors going out to march in gay pride parades, displays of that kind aren’t even the worst change in culture portended by repeal of DADT.  Worse than that – worse than families having to deal with gay PDA at base facilities, worse even than the flood of lawsuits to get DOD to recognize gay unions as “marriage,” and no doubt to perform such weddings in base facilities – will be the introduction of a gay-affirmation litmus test for those aspiring to advance as officers or senior NCOs.

Should the US military be in the business of affirming specific ideas about people’s sexuality?  It will be, if DADT is repealed.  That’s what this is about.  It isn’t about military readiness; it’s about getting the military to affirm the expression of sexual orientation.

There is no such thing as quiescent tolerance in the military.  If something is acknowledged at all, the military has a policy on it, and positive adherence to policy is required.  Gay activists will ensure that the military’s policies entail positive affirmations – and of many kinds of behavior that you, in your civilian life, can choose to avoid or ignore.  The people in the military will no longer have that option.

Americans, this is your decision.  It isn’t something for just the military to decide.  I say that even though I know what the military would decide if its uniformed members settled the question by the one man, one vote method.  What I ask is that you take the trouble to understand what you are deciding, and preparing to impose on your armed forces.

This isn’t about being vaguely tolerant of gays, at the comfortable distance most people choose to maintain most of the time.  It isn’t about the great majority of gays who live unostentatiously and won’t take offense if their department head doesn’t set aside applause time for their gayness every morning at 0730 during Gay Pride Month.

This is about setting the military up for gay activists to recruit plaintiffs from, and changing military culture to be hostile to independent thought and personal reservations about homosexuality.  Today, those in authority who believe homosexuality is wrong do keep it to themselves.  It never has to come up as a matter of personal belief or preference.   The repeal of DADT is what will ensure that it will.

Recently in the Green Room:



Trackback URL


I wonder how Presidents view the gender choices of their Secret Sevice details. I would bet that they don’t ask, and don’t tell.

percysunshine on May 14, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Great post! I feel this will pass, but I think it will be as your insight in this article said. Too bad they military can’t vote on this issue with secret ballots!

letget on May 14, 2010 at 1:42 PM

My brother is a Ranger. And he knows, as almost everyone on his base know, that one thing isn’t being addressed:

Recruitment will PLUMMET.

DADT works. “Open” will not


Opposite Day on May 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM

My brother is a Ranger. And he knows, as almost everyone on his base know, that one thing isn’t being addressed:

Recruitment will PLUMMET.

Opposite Day on May 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM

How true is this for the military in general, and how badly will it ‘plummet’ IYHO?

I’ve heard many stories that the armed forces are already scraping the bottom of the barrel for recruits…another dropoff could mean serious consequences.

Dark-Star on May 14, 2010 at 2:37 PM

This post has been promoted to

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Allahpundit on May 14, 2010 at 8:45 PM

HotAir — Politics, Culture, Media, 2017, Breaking News from a conservative viewpoint
Top Pick

“Trump’s people said, ‘We’ll be writing the speech that the President’s Audio-Animatronic figure will be saying.'”

Top Pick

Excuses, excuses.

Not really a “kill all the lawyers” scenario

4 pm ET!

“it has not taken serious steps to end its own complicity in trafficking, including forced laborers from North Korea.”

Currently doing a search for “good international trade lawyers”

Ransomware attack spreads through Europe

John Sexton Jun 27, 2017 1:01 PM

“A massive ransomware campaign is currently unfolding worldwide.”

At least their address rarely changes

It just keeps on happening

“Trump is good for business right now.”

Start spreading the news…

“Now it’s time for the next step.”

A “cryptic” warning to Bashar al-Assad?

Jazz Shaw Jun 27, 2017 8:01 AM

The three strikes rule may be in effect

CNN reporters resign over retracted story

John Sexton Jun 26, 2017 9:21 PM

“The individuals all stated that they accepted responsibility and wanted to resign.”

Federalism’s greatest champion is now …

Ed Morrissey Jun 26, 2017 8:41 PM

“In the end, we’re a democracy.”

“Almost all controversial speech harms people, upsets or offends them…”

Obama: Back home again in Indonesia

Andrew Malcolm Jun 26, 2017 7:21 PM

The call to prayer and eating dog.

Testing the waters.

“primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.”

“If I were a Seattle lawmaker, I would be thinking hard about the $15 an hour phase-in.”

Days of future past

“Not only are taxpayers footing the bill, but people are dying unnecessarily because of this.”

Israel settles who can stand where at the Western Wall

Andrew Malcolm Jun 26, 2017 3:21 PM

Women to the right, men to the left.

Look on the bright side. There’s less snow in the summer

Big win … but for how long?

“Several Russian cities have unveiled monuments to Stalin in recent months.”

Massive disappointment

Emboldened conservative wing?

It’s more about the powers of the Presidency at this point

A second look at paper ballots?

Jazz Shaw Jun 26, 2017 10:41 AM

Low tech solutions to high tech crime

No extra beatings required, thanks

A “”massive, massive f*** up…”

This is totally amazing!

McConnell may not get his wish on health care vote

Taylor Millard Jun 25, 2017 7:31 PM

Senate leadership wants a vote this week, others say, “Negative, Ghost Rider.”

Helping others without the government.