It's Time to Drop "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- End of Story

Shaker Phira just emailed me this story about Defense Secretary Robert Gates saying he's looking at ways to make the US military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy "more humane," including possibly changing the rule to allow "letting people serve who may have been outed due to vengeance or a jilted lover."

Phira writes (which I'm posting with her permission):

There's just so much wrong with this. DADT is based in hatred, cruelty, fear, and discrimination; to make it "more humane" would require it to become humane. And to become humane would mean, at least to me, that DADT would be thrown out. And I doubt that's Gates' goal right now. Or Obama's.

 

And being selective about which LGBT people are allowed to stay in the army is just further discrimination. "Oh, you're gay? You're out of the army. Oh, but we know about it because your ex-girlfriend got angry and told us? Then I GUESS you can stay," vs. "Oh, you're gay? You're out of the army. Oh, but we know about it because you had the courage to stand up for yourself and be up-front about your sexuality? Then get out. I don't care if you're our last Arabic translator."

I don't have much to add, aside from this: The stated rationale for forcing soldiers into the closet is troop cohesion (or some wacky variation thereof) -- which has long been debunked, anyway -- but I can't imagine how the military expects to continue trying to justify the policy on that basis if they let some openly gay soldiers serve, with, inevitably, no discernible effect on morale.

And if one gay soldier is already out in a unit, what possible reason could be given to require other gay soldiers in the same unit to stay closeted?

I never underestimate homophobes' capacity for cognitive dissonance -- see: still making arguments that same-sex marriage will undermine the sanctity of opposite-sex marriage even after Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage and retained the lowest divorce rate among opposite-sex married couples in the nation -- but, realistically, this move would leave them with no rationale (even the crappy one they've got now) to support the policy.

It's time to '86 the policy altogether. End of story.