As a closeted gay man who served honorably in the military, I was interested in watching the recent hearing of the House Armed Services Personnel Sub-Committee on the subject of “Don’t ask; Don’t Tell.” There were three witnesses for repeal of the law and only two witnesses in support (they couldn’t find a third?) Each witness was allowed five minutes of testimony (except one in favor of who was given 10 minutes to balance the time allotted for both sides.) Each committee member then had five minutes to question the witnesses or to make a statement.

I found the hearing very moving. First of all, that such a hearing was held for the first time in 15 years, and at the testimony and comments. The three in favor of repeal included a straight, black, retired Army officer; a lesbian, white, retired Naval officer; and a gay, Hispanic, wounded Iraq war veteran. The two opposed were a white woman who was the self-appointed chair of the Center for Military Readiness and a stereotype of “Old Sarge.”

The circular logic of those who said we should refuse to allow gays or lesbians to serve in the military stressed these points:

• Gays are “ineligible” to serve (hint- “undesirable”) because regulations say they are not eligible, and the regulations should not be changed. (They failed to note that the Supreme Court five years ago stroke down all laws implying that homosexuality was “criminal behavior.”)
• Morale and “unit cohesion” would suffer if gays or lesbians were allowed to serve (ignoring the fact that they were already) because straight people would feel “threatened” (implying that homosexuals were sex-starved homicidal maniacs who could not control their impulses) and that these “frightened” people would then chose to leave the military or that the “unit” (whatever that is) would fall apart in times of stress. The Iraq war veteran noted that his marine buddies came and rescued him when he was hit by an IED even though they knew he was gay.
• They said the issue wasn’t social prejudice; it was about sexuality and how the military should set policies to deal with sexual behavior (notwithstanding the Universal Code of Military Justice which covers in great detail all forms of misconduct).

Well, if the opposition chose to pick their best spokespersons, it was a sad commentary of how inept their philosophy is because they were condescending, hostile, and degrading of the two former service members who were testifying of how they had served honorably but in fear of being “outed.” In other words, these heroes were told they just never should have been allowed into the military in the first place.

The three who spoke in favor of repeal were eloquent, reasoned, and moving in their account of their experiences. What was surprising to me were the statements of the committee members, some of whom had served in the military, who said the policy was immoral, unjust, and discriminatory. Clearly the majority favored repeal. Those who supported the policy threw dodge-ball questions at the opposition witnesses who kept replaying the same broken record without answering questions or responding to challenges. They stuck to their spiel, and that was it.

Commentators already have speculated that there is little likelihood of repeal during this session of the Congress in spite of these hearings. The chair stated that this was only the first of many “conversations” on this issue. There is still much resistance in the military and the Congress. The hearings did not address the June 8, 2008 Report of General/Flag Officers that had ten “findings” including that “evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion.” The Department of Defense declined to send any representative to the hearing, and the chair read a brief written response to her inquiry that basically said that DOD doesn’t want to “deal with it” and they would enforce whatever changes the Congress may want to make (or not).

Regardless of what changes the next administration may or may not make on this issue (the Democrats could still sell us out as a matter of political expediency), change is in the wind on this issue and much of the credit should go to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (www.SLDN.org) who has helped the men and women who have seen their lives wrecked by the arbitrary and capricious enforcement (or lack of) of this policy and defended their rights as American citizens while other groups ignored the issue.

Gays are not asking “special rights” to be allowed to serve in the military; we just want to be treated like everyone else and not separated out for arbitrary and unjust punishment just for being who we are. The opponents perpetuate the fear of those who are not “like us,” and the proponents remind us that we are all human with noble aspirations as well as faults and the military is the greatest melting pot of all. The military should not maintain a policy of discrimination against any group or class of people simply on the basis of an irrational fear or a 19th Century social taboo.