Everything You’ve Heard About “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is Wrong
by Peter Sprigg
February 4, 2010
One thing I have noticed in the debate over homosexuals in the military is that roughly 99.5% of the American public, including 99.5% of long-time Washington political reporters and 99.5% of members of Congress, believe three key things about the issue.
- The current policy regarding homosexuals in the military is governed by a law known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
- Under current law, homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military as long as they are not open about their sexual orientation.
- Doing away with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
Each of these three statements is false.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is not the law of the land. It was a compromise policy announced by the Clinton Administration in July of 1993, after their original proposal to simply open the military to homosexuals was widely rejected.[i]
When Congress adopted legislation on this issue in November of 1993, they did not say that homosexuals were welcome to serve in the military. On the contrary, they declared, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”[ii]
Doing away with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy would only allow more consistent enforcement of the current law against homosexuality in the military, unless Congress were to also repeal the law that they adopted in 1993.
For the record, here are the findings that Congress made—and that President Clinton signed into law—in 1993. This is the current law regarding homosexuality in the military:
Congress makes the following findings:
`(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
`(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
`(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
`(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
`(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
`(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
`(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.
`(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that–
`(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
`(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
`(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
`(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
`(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
`(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
`(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
`(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
`(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
[i] Susan Yoachum and Carolyn Lochhead, “Clinton Orders New Gay-GI Policy: He concedes few will like compromise,” The San Francisco Chronicle, July 20, 1993, p. A1.
[ii] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, November 30, 1993, Title V, Subtitle G, Sec. 571, “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces” (10 U.S.C. 654); online at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:5:./temp/~c103HPMAIr:e399464:
Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.
Comments
In addition, per last years CDC statistics, slightly over 50% of the deadly HIV/AIDS cases were caused by homosexual behavior.
The high standards of our military should be maintained, not compromised in an effort
to be “tolerant”
Those statements aren’t actual law, they are just commentary stating reasons for the law, which is given in section (b). Congress can make findings that all bananas are red, but bananas are still mostly yellow. The only thing you’re doing by misidentifying commentary as law is demonstrating your lack of integrity.
It has been a long tradition that men and women serve in the military. My family as well as others have parents and grandparents who served and died for this country. To allow this change would not only disrupt the very core of what the military stands for but would shame anyone who ever served in the military.
This is just another example of our president not being in touch with most americans. He has had poor performance to accomplish anything since he’s been in office and this is just another one of his poor choices he has made.
Maintain the don’t ask don’t tell policy
[...] Former Marine commandant Gen. Carl E. Mundy and 1,160 of his retired flag and general officer colleagues have spoken forcibly against it, while plenty of conservatives sit in the shadows, afraid to take a position. Other groups may be skittish to take on this issue. FRC is not. Every day, American soldiers take fire for us. This is our turn to stand on the front lines for them. To learn more, don’t miss Peter Sprigg’s blog post, "Everything You’ve Heard about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Is Wrong." [...]
What’s this got to do with JOBS?
Barry, we need JOBS!
I started my career while a draft still lived in 1972 [and have served in combat], the military is no place for social engineering, we live hard at the best of times and don’t need this too. The UCMJ is the laws we live under and things civilians take for granted and normal like adultry are against our law. These social engineers who have never served and have no intention to, but insist on telling others how uninformed and narrow minded they are need to learn that life isn’t always fair and move on.
I graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1947. My first duty station was the USS Tarawa CV40 (a large aircraft carrier). Even though it was a huge vessel, I can’t imagine the discomfort that would have been experienced had there been gays and lesbians aboard ship. While I recognize that men and women have the right to determine their own sexual identity, I firmly believe they have no place aboard a naval vessel!
[...] on the front lines for them. To learn more, don’t miss Peter Sprigg’s blog post, “Everything You’ve Heard about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Is Wrong.” Marie Woods Comments: I have to put my 2 cents in on this subject. I agree with this [...]
Just replacing the words gay and homosexual in your above screed, we get the following statements. I would like to know how you would like it if religion were outlawed?
Think for a moment of the current social controversies that could potentially be avoided if religious conduct was against the law.
Religiousness in the military: problem solved. We shouldn’t make a place for habitual felons in the armed forces. End of discussion, end of controversy. If someone objects, ask them which other felonies the military ought to overlook in screening recruits.
Religious marriage: problem solved. We should never legalize unions between any two people when the union is forged specifically to engage in felony behavior. Would we sanction, for instance, the formation of a corporation whose stated purpose was to import illegal drugs?
Religious indoctrination in the schools: problem solved. We don’t want to raise a generation of schoolchildren to believe that felony behavior is perfectly appropriate. That’s why we spend so much money warning students about the danger of drugs.
Religious crimes laws: problem solved. We wouldn’t throw a gay in jail for saying that illegal behavior is not only illegal but also immoral. For instance, he’s free to say that murder is not only contrary to man’s law but also to God’s law. End of the threat to freedom of sexuality and speech.
Special rights for religious in the workplace: problem solved. No employer should be forced to hire admitted felons to work for him. End of the threat to freedom of sexuality and freedom of association in the marketplace.
Most military units in history have been bastions of homosexual activity, except in America. Most of these young victims have not been self-described homosexuals. Hence, this would cause the proliferation of more sexual addiction in a vast part of the heretofore nonaddictive part of the population. These activities were well known in the past as when Napoleon was offered services of prostitutes for his troops but said, “Mes hommes en sont suffit,” or “My men are enough.” We now know that such activities are dangerous in terms of disease, if not emotional trauma.
I believe the ultimate test is to determine whether an act is a sin in God’s eyes… The word ‘homosexual’ is a softened word that has been pressed upon society to replace the biblical word ‘sodomy’. This sin is an abomination to out Lord and to every society that has indulged itself in this manner. Rome and other societies fell from the decadence brought on by such sins as Sodomy.
I will vote against anyone who supports the President’s stand on any change of our military ‘s standards.
DADT is a bit silly. Everybody knows their gays in military — there always have been in every age in every society (some of history’s greatest military geniuses have been gay).
Oh, and by the way not all gays are “sodomites”.
[...] The resolution is ridiculous, ignores the cautions of the Marine Corps commandant, the Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, and puts social experimentation and the wishes of a very small minority before national security and military cohesion. [...]
I was in the military four months ago….I can tell you from personal experience that there are plenty of gay folks around and on many ships I served on, DADT wasn’t even enforced – people were open about it and didn’t care about other people’s personal lives
By: Phil Brady | February 4, 2010 at 6:52 pm
My family is against any change in the military in regards to homosexuals in the military. We will vote against any one who would try to make the current change the our President has suggested.