This version is raw and needs heavy editing - it was written with an outline combined with a bit of stream of consciousness. It's far too large to be digested easily. I'm desperately seeking suggestions for cutting and rearrangement.
Feedback to jay_ from Ehle :)
back to Portfolio
Today Is Zero Hour
by Jay Boda
The Prussians Are Coming!
An iconic scene in movie history shows a vibrant parade in Chicago with a handsome young man singing and dancing the Beatles' classic, "Twist and Shout." He's on a parade float surrounded by buxom maidens in dirndls and everyone is entranced by the young man's energy and charisma. Of course, I’m talking about the seminal classic from John Hughes’ film, "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." With girls in German frocks, most folks assume it's an Oktoberfest parade. However, an especially observant viewer will notice it's a General Von Steuben Parade. Who is that you ask? Why Friedrich Wilhelm August Heinrich Ferdinand von Steuben, of course!
Major General Von Steuben, or Baron von Steuben, was the first inspector general of the U.S. Continental Army and General George Washington's chief of staff during the Revolutionary War. He was a Prussian nobleman recruited by Benjamin Franklin to whip the American colonists into shape to fight the British army. Von Steuben is widely credited in creating the Continental Army's military drill and discipline program. He authored, "The Revolutionary War Drill Manual," the book that was the gold standard of U.S. military drill until the war of 1812. (1)
When the colonists were victorious in the Siege of Yorktown, Washington praised only three men, Von Steuben was one of them. Washington's final act as commander of the Continental Army was to write a letter thanking Von Steuben for his service and contributions. When historians cite the indispensable leaders of the Revolutionary War, the two men who are usually mentioned are Washington and his right-hand man, Major General Von Steuben. (2)
Von Steuben’s accomplishments are great and his place in history is assured. Why is any of this important today? Because he was also a known to be homosexual to Benjamin Franklin, General Washington, and several of his aides and men he led. And none of them cared enough to throw him out of the Army. (2)
Jay, this is a fabulous lead, I love it. Educational and relevent. However, this darn line below me really throws off the flow of your paper!
A Call for Action
Today, America bans openly gay servicemembers from serving in her military using a public law and military policy colloquially named, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).(3) Despite 234 years (and counting) of honorable and courageous service by gays and lesbians in uniform, the United States continues to execute the same type of exclusionary policies used by countries like Iran, Syria, and China. Despite 36 countries allowing open service, several of them allies to the United States, the ban persists.(4)
To date, DADT has survived legal challenges and repeal efforts in Congress. And now America finds itself at a cross roads. A lame duck session of Congress may take up the repeal of DADT. Or maybe not. Some argue that only civic action by America’s citizenry will push the repeal effort forward.(5) Many Americans are polarized about this issue, many more are ambivalent. I want to tell you why you should care about repealing DADT. I want you to know why all servicemembers should serve honestly with regards to their sexuality. I want to tell you why you should take action to repeal DADT. I want you to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
"When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.”
The epitaph for Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich.
Winner of the Purple Heart and Bronze Star for combat action in Vietnam.
DADT Defined
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been in force for almost 18 years. President Clinton signed it into law as a compromise after he attempted to remove the ban on gays in the military through an executive order. There are many misconceptions about the law from both the straight and gay communities. In a nutshell, DADT replaces a previous ban on homosexual service in force since the 1950s.(6) It ended the military’s practice of asking recruits about their sexuality. If recruits answered they were homosexual or bisexual, they were not allowed to serve. DADT also enforced a stipulation that servicemembers are not allowed to state their homosexuality or bisexuality. Hence, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. A third stipulation, “Don’t Pursue,” is lesser known. This portion of the law ended the military’s practice of aggressive investigations to root out and discharge homosexuals in uniform. However, this simplified explanation of DADT hardly scratches the surface of what the policy actually demands of all servicemembers, gay and straight.
Reading the enlistment form, I didn’t anticipate the question.
My 18-year old face flushed red just from reading it.
“Are you a homosexual or bisexual?”
There were only two options: “Yes and No.”
Where was the option, “I don’t know because I haven’t even had sex yet”?
Quickly, before the recruiter noticed my hesitation, I checked “No.”
Jay, consider putting this part in italics!
Full disclosure: I am gay and I served on active duty for 20 years in the U.S. Air Force.
In actuality, DADT goes far beyond not asking and not telling. It orders the gay servicemember to commit to a life of dishonesty with themselves and their fellow servicemembers. It demands heterosexual servicemember peers to either be complicit in the dishonesty or turn in the gay servicemember. It creates distrust between peers, it enforces lying, and ultimately breaks down the cohesion beneficial in carrying out military missions.
Those without a full understanding of DADT often ask: since the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, why doesn’t he just get rid of DADT? Prior to 1993, this could have been possible. The ban on gays before DADT was not codified in federal law, it was just military policy able to be changed by the President. In fact, this is exactly how President Truman integrated all units of the military in 1948. (7) However, once DADT was law, the power to open the military to gay servicemembers was out of the President’s hands. Some scholars argue the President can use his “Stop Loss” wartime powers and not enforce DADT; this solution has not gained traction for political reasons. (8) Ultimately, for a permanent end to DADT to end, Congress must repeal the law.
And that brings us to today. Congress is now considering a provision that would enable a possible path to repeal DADT. Currently, Congress is considering an amendment attached to the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that, if passed, would put into place a series of conditions that would enable repeal of DADT. That explanation sounds clunky, but it is what it is. Many people think the amendment would outright repeal DADT and allow gays to serve openly. This is incorrect. Suffice it to say, just to get Congress to consider repealing DADT, several compromises were made. As an analogy, the planets and stars will have to align at the perfect time for DADT to be repealed.
To add injury to insult, even if the historic step happens that DADT is repealed, open service of gay and lesbian servicemembers is not necessarily going to be allowed. If DADT is repealed, the Department of Defense must then stipulate policy that will allow open service. This step is not mandated in the current repeal provision and thus, open service is not guaranteed if DADT is repealed. It’s complicated, yes. But it’s important to understand the facets and intricacies of the proposed law. This is why through out this piece I make note of both DADT repeal and open service as separate issues. Clarity and honesty in reporting of the facts demands it.
The Lame Duck
So where are we today? Well, the House of Representatives passed the NDAA on 28 May 2010. (9) The Senate Armed Services Committee passed the NDAA with the DADT repeal provisional amendment on 27 May 2010. (10) Progress to pass the NDAA in the full Senate stalled on 21 September 2010, when Senate Republicans filibustered Senator Reid’s motion for cloture. (11) The midterm elections now make passage of the NDAA in the lame duck session of Congress even more precarious. The alignment of planets and stars analogy is even more relevant. Servicemembers United, military advocacy group made up of gay and lesbian veterans, released a video explaining a path for repeal recently. Timing is critical. And this is why civic action is required to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell - now more than ever. (5)
The Status Quo - Through History
I don’t lightly suggest the ban on open service be dismissed. There are several important issues to consider when talking about repealing DADT. Through out America’s history, several reasons have been given to keep homosexuals from openly serving in uniform.
- Homosexuality was illegal
- Homosexuality was immoral
- Homosexuality was thought to be a mental illness
- Homosexuality presented a security problem; servicemembers could be blackmailed
- Open homosexuality would disrupt unit cohesion and morale
- Military leadership was against gay servicemembers from serving openly
- Servicemembers at large are against serving with openly gay servicemembers
Through time, one by one, each of these reasons has either gone away or been proven to be completely wrong. When homosexuality was decriminalized across America (12), it became a matter of morality. Though more difficult to define and track, polls across America and the political divide show most Americans are nonplused when it comes to gay America (13). Starting in the 1950s, gays in uniform were banned because homosexuality was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). When homosexuality was removed from the DSM in the 1970s (14), the ultimate reason to bar gays from serving evolved to national security (15). Despite the circular logic, the government argued gays could be blackmailed if they were allowed to serve and come out of the closet. In actuality, gays were in fact blackmailed because they weren’t allowed to serve honestly. Had the ban been lifted and gays could serve with integrity with those they served, how could they be blackmailed? (16)
In 1993 when DADT came on the scene and gays were explicitly allowed to serve their country for the first time in America’s history. However, the bar moved yet again with the subjective and unquantifiable standard that unit cohesion and morale would be harmed if gays were allowed to serve openly (6). Something that’s important to remember is DADT was not meant as the final solution to gays in uniform. President Clinton’s intention was to allow gays to serve openly. However, his political timing and the politics of the time didn’t allow him to revisit the issue during his presidency.
When President Obama campaigned in 2007 and 2008, he said he would remove the ban to open service. (17) Again, like the carnival game of duck hunt, the standard that gays had to meet for open service began to move. Opponents started to say they would support repealing DADT and allow open service IF military leaders were on board with it. When retired generals and admirals started saying it was time to repeal DADT, the bar inched higher. (18) The troops had to be the ones to make the ultimate decision whether they wanted to serve along side openly gay servicemembers - even though America had welcomed gays and lesbians into the military for 15 years by that point.
The arguments against gays serving openly and honestly have changed over time. What’s hasn’t changed is the fact gays and lesbians continue to defend the country with courage and honor - both in peace time and war time, just like their straight counterparts. But unlike their straight counterparts, gays and lesbians serve with a cloud of fear over their heads. Despite the threat of losing their careers if their homosexuality is discovered, gay servicemembers sacrifice to defend America.
All the while, the debate continues. Here's what those who oppose repeal of DADT have to say:
I think maybe you should consider writing a history on homosexuality. In the past, and in many cultures, homosexuality was considered to be normal, and no one thought it was a big deal. I think it'd be an interesting way to support why the military should be more accepting of homosexuality.
DADT is a Success!
To some, the current policy is working. Senator John McCain opposes the repeal of DADT citing servicemembers like myself as examples of how the policy works. I served 20 years on active duty. I earned the highest possible performance evaluations all 20 years. I earned several awards for my service to include my combat service in Iraq. With credentials like these, I’m a prime example gays can serve with honor and distinction while remaining in the closet.
“Hey Boda, how you doing buddy?”
“Not bad, you?”
“Still hung over from the weekend. We missed you at the club. Where were you?”
...
again, italics?
What McCain, and those like him, do not acknowledge are the unseen effects and costs of DADT. My military service record doesn’t show I couldn’t be honest or completely trust my peers. It didn’t show how I couldn’t even answer the simplest of questions like, “What did you do this weekend?” My service record doesn’t show I had an ulcer at the age of 21 from the fear of being discovered gay in uniform. It doesn’t show McCain my anxiety disorder, the therapy, and medication I took after ten years in a military closet.
Not Now
Others say now isn’t the time to repeal DADT. America is engaged in a global war on terror. We’re stretched thin with multiple combat zones including Afghanistan and Iraq. Nine years after 9/11, our forces are now going into their fifth year-long deployment into dangerous combat zones. The forces are stretched and stressed. They’re coming back with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Adding a major change to personnel policy to all this doesn’t make sense. (19)
The irony of this argument is that while we’re fighting two wars at once, deploying troops to combat zones five times in nine years, and reaching record rates of PTSD is that we’re discharging troops for no other reason than being gay. Over 14,000 gay and lesbian servicemembers have been discharged under DADT. (20) That’s an average of of 834 troops a year or 2.25 troops a day. Many of these discharges were interrogators and linguists proficient in the languages where we fight. Today, there is a shortage of these mission critical specialties. (20) Because of this shortage, all branches of military have lowered the standards for recruitment to meet the demand for the war machine. Minimum aptitude scores are lower; a high school diploma is no longer required to serve. More and more waivers for elicit drug use and felony crimes are used to get recruits into uniform. Meanwhile, America kicks out fully-qualified, highly-trained, and motivated troops - because they’re gay.
Wow, this is ridiculous! This paragraph could even play into how America is dumbing down their standards just so more people can succeed. Unbelievable. Eye-opening.
In 2005, the U.S. Army didn’t have enough human intelligence collectors, also known as interrogators. The Army asked the other service branches for help. The Air Force doesn’t perform interrogation as one of its missions. The Air Force announced a new opportunity in March 2005. “Train as an interrogator for six months and deploy for a year in Iraq. Any takers?” As crazy as that may sound to civilians, it sounded right up my alley. So I volunteered and became one of 50 of the first Air Force interrogators. I left my normal Air Force job behind as others took up the slack during my 18-month absence. The 50 of us stayed in a hotel for six months during our training. Then we deployed to Iraq. None of the Air Force interrogators knew Arabic so contractor linguists were hired to translate for us. Once we returned from our deployment, all of the training and experience of our interrogator training was never used again.
^ i understand that it flows...but at the same time, I don't get the significance with your standpoint. Perhaps make it clearer? After reading this I just think "well that was a waste of his time if they never put his training to use..." But I don't connect it with the DADT.
Contrast that with Army Specialist Alex Nicholson. He knows five languages, including Arabic. While he was in Army interrogator school, a student peer of his saw a personal letter written by Alex in Portuguese to a friend. Alex mentioned liking another guy. The student peer turned Alex in for being gay and Alex was discharged under DADT - six months after 9/11. (21)
On September 10, 2001, America didn’t have enough intelligence personnel proficient in the languages of our enemies. The terrorist group that carried out the attacks on 9/11 sent a message telling their members they would attack the next day.
“One of the primary reasons behind the intelligence failures leading to 9/11 was that the Department of Defense’s National Security Agency did not have enough Arabic linguists to translate the backlog of intelligence from Arabic into English before 9/11. [Arabic messages like,] ‘Tomorrow is Zero Hour.’ Any one of the 54 Arabic linguists discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell could have easily translated that phrase. So the question we need to ask ourselves is: Do we really care anymore if the person who translates the next piece of crucial intelligence is gay or straight as long as he or she gets the job done quickly and accurately and helps save American lives in the process?” — Army veteran Alex Nicholson (22)
Great point! However, I feel this should be connected to the previous paragraph on the lack of translators. Consider replacing, as it confuses the reader.
To the detractors of repealing DADT: if we don’t want to repeal DADT now, then when?
Military Leadership Doesn’t Want Repeal
The President is in charge of the military. Congress regulates the military codifying its laws and appropriating its funds. This is in keeping with the Constitutional mandate of civilian control over the military. That said, more often than not, Congress defers to military leadership for advice on military matters. Senator John McCain is a Vietnam veteran and a former prisoner of war. He is a very influential lawmaker when it comes to military matters. He’s always been opposed to DADT. During the 2008 Presidential election, McCain said he would consider repealing DADT when military leadership came to him and said it was time for the policy to go. (23) McCain went so far as citing a letter signed by 1000 retired generals and admirals who are against DADT repeal. (24)
In February 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullens, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which McCain is a member. (25) Both Gates and Mullens testified it was their opinion that DADT should be repealed. McCain was unmoved.
Remember the letter McCain waved around with the 1000 signatures? It was later undermined when Servicemembers United (SU) proved several of the generals were added to the letter either unknowingly or unwillingly. SU even claimed a widow signed in place of her husband and some generals had died well before the date of the letter. The average age of the signatories was 74 with the oldest being 98. Overall, SU claimed the leaders listed on the letter did not represent the leadership of the 21st-century military. (26)
Reading this, it didn't portray the message I thought I would get from the subtitle...
The Troops Don’t Want Repeal
Despite several civilian polls showing between 70-80% of the American public support DADT repeal regardless of political affiliation, the argument against repeal remains citing the majority of active duty and reserve servicemembers are against repeal. Many say the troops are the ones that have to literally live with the change and it’s unfair to force social change on volunteer defenders of the country. Special conditions exist in the military that don’t exist in the civilian world. Close living conditions and group showers are most often cited. Enlistments and retention of personnel will suffer. Some groups so far as claiming repeal will mean an increase in sexual predator crimes. (27)
Each of these issues are important to consider. Troop morale and unit cohesion are vital parts of completing the mission. However, it’s important to note the military is not the only institution where peers serve, fight, live in close quarters, or even shower together. Paramilitary organizations like police and fire departments across the country have dropped their bans against gays and lesbians. These institutions continued to carry out their missions with their now openly homosexual members. Unconvinced, opponents do not accept the equal status of paramilitary forces. The military is wholly different. Servicemembers are subjected to stresses and conditions of no other occupation in the United States. Federal institutions like the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigations support and sometimes act in military operations. Both have dropped their bans on homosexuals. Defense contractors like Black Water basically act as hired guns and carry out military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan dropped their bans against gays and lesbians. This rationale is still not good enough for most opponents of repeal. Military life and sacrifice are without equal and there are intrinsic aspects no other organization knows or experiences.
It’s important to note that like so many other enterprises regarding freedom, independence, and liberty, America would not go first in this endeavor. Many other countries allow gays to serve openly in their militaries today and have for many years. (6) Thirty-six countries to be exact. Many of them allies to the United States and part of the 9/11 “coalition of the willing” fighting along side America’s bravest in combat zones in Afghanistan and Iraq. What of them? What of the lessons learned that open homosexuality did not impair or damage these militaries? (6) Opponents to repeal are unsurprisingly unmoved. They reason America’s military deploys at a greater rate with greater numbers of troops doing longer tours than our allies. The comparisons between different militaries are apples and oranges.
It Doesn’t Matter
By this point, it’s probably clear opponents will not be swayed by any study, example, proof, or evidence. They will not admit open and honest service of homosexuals in uniform will not harm America’s military under any circumstances. When their assumptions, opinions, quasi-facts, and conclusions are proven to be wrong or out-dated, they point to another bogey man for advocates for fairness and decency to chase.
“I can’t take it any more, Mom. I have to get out.”
“Why do you want to leave the Air Force after you invested so much time.”
“Because they discriminate against gays. I’ll never be able to be myself if I stay.”
“Yes, that’s probably true. But you understand if you get out, civilians discriminate, too.
In fact, if you’re fired by a civilian, they probably won’t tell you they fired you because you’re gay.”
I decided to stay in uniform and serve a career through retirement the next day.
- I served my country on active duty for 20 years in the United States Air Force. I served overseas for almost 13 years. I served in combat for one year in Iraq as an interrogator. I was deployed to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and Bahrain. I earned the highest possible performance evaluations 20 years in a row. I earned three meritorious service medals and several Air Force medals as well as an Army Achievement Medal. I was promoted early or “below-the-zone” and was the Communications and Information Non-Commissioned Officer of the Year for Headquarters Central Command (the command in charge of all forces in the Middle East.) I held one of the nation’s highest security clearances, my background and behavior having stood up to the most rigorous of background checks. I managed millions of dollars of equipment and led hundreds of men and women in uniform. At one point, I directly served the four-star general in charge of Air Forces across Europe. None of that would have mattered if I had said three words during my service, “I am gay.”
- Marine Sergeant Justin Elzie was an embassy guard and “Marine of the Year” winner. He outed himself on television in 1993 during the initial DADT debate. During his four-year legal challenge to being discharged under DADT, he served on active duty as an out Marine and was recommended for promotion three times. We was eventually discharged for being gay. (28)
- Army Specialist Jose Zuniga, selected as the 6th Army Soldier of the Year after combat service in Operation Desert Storm, outed himself the night before a gay pride March in Washington, DC. Zuniga urged the President to, “lead the way, show us the courage and conviction to guide our country, and specifically the military, into a new era of understanding.” He was promptly discharged under DADT and demoted under false charge. (28)
- Air Force Lietenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach served 19 years and accumulated 2180 flying hours including 1238 hours in the F-15E fighter jet. He flew 88 combat missions. He served in combat zones in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq and earned one Meritorious Service Medal, nine Air Medals (one for heroism), five Commendation Medals, one Navy Commendation Medal, and two Achievement Medals. Fehrenbach currently faces discharge under DADT after a civilian acquaintance outed him to his command. His discharge under DADT is currently pending; if he's discharged before he makes 20 years on active duty, he will lose a lifetime worth of retirement benefits. (28) - WOW. that's ridiculous. Hey, just thought of something, you didn't really explain how someone can be discharged by DADT. Im curious, can they be discharged because it states dont ask and dont tell, and if someone finds out, that means they've told? which means they can be? Please explain!
- United States Military Academy at West Point Cadet Katherine Miller was ranked ninth in her class of 1,157. She had a 3.829 grade point average and scored 367 points out of a theoretical maximum of 300 points on the Army's fitness test. She completed U.S. Army Airborne School. Miller resigned her appointment in her third year at West Point deciding she was unable and unwilling to serve under DADT. She now attends Yale University on a full scholarship and hopes to rejoin the Army when and if DADT is repealed. (28) My friend attends West Point :) but wow...
My generation was the first to serve under DADT. Senator McCain was right. Gays and lesbians have proven we are able to serve silently and do tremendous service for the country with honor and courage. But should they have to? They don’t serve in silence because they want to. They serve in silence to keep the peace with those intolerant towards homosexuals plain and simple. Gays must dodge questions about their personal lives or outright lie to protect their careers. Is this American? Is this just? During my 20 years of service, I risked my career being friends with anyone in uniform. Serving in uniform within that dichotomy, being told you’re the best and yet, still not good enough leaves scars.
- I suffered from a form of anxiety and depression for several years that required medication. Stop and think about that. How exactly does a gay servicemember seek help for issues related to being gay in uniform from military physicians and therapists? Remember, gays are allowed to serve under DADT, but they're not allowed to talk about it openly. Doctors, psychologists, and even chaplains are not excluded in enforcing DADT. Tremendous numbers of troops are returning from combat with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Treatment of PTSD includes regression and reliving past incidents in the combat zone. Complete honesty with yourself and your therapist is required. I know this because I was diagnosed with mild PTSD after returning from Iraq. I refused treatment because I didn’t know or trust the assigned therapist. I was two years from retirement and I chose recurring nightmares over treatment from a military doctor - my only option.
- Marine Corporal Walker Burttschell dropped out of college and joined the Marines the day after 9/11. Most of his fellow Marines knew he was gay and didn’t care. However, one of his roommates threatened to out Burttschell to his commander. Burttschell’s family didn’t know he was gay and a discharge under DADT was more than he could bare. He became suicidal and was hospitalized under suicide watch. He confided to his psychiatrist about his sexual orientation. The comments on his medical record became the evidence used to discharge Burtschell under DADT. (29)
A Call for Action - Redux
The photo on the left was taken in the 1970s
The photo on the right was taken on 15 November 2010
Both depict protesters at the White House demanding equality for gay and lesbian servicemembers.
Stories like those described above are not the exception. They are the rule when it comes to service under DADT. It’s estimated there are 65,000 gay and lesbian servicemembers serving in uniform today. (20) Accurate numbers are not available because of DADT. We do know over 14,000 servicemembers have been discharged under DADT costing the country millions of dollars (the cost to recruit and train the gay servicemember, the legal fees associated in discharging the gay servicemember, and of course, the cost to recruit and train their replacement are the associated costs of DADT.) (20) What cannot be replaced with each new recruit are the years of experience those discharged take away from the military.
Several actions are currently on-going to strike down DADT and relegate it to the checkered history of America. A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of DADT is currently in progress. A Ninth Circuit federal judge ruled DADT unconstitutional in September, 2010. President Obama’s Justice Department appealed and the case will probably end up being decided by the Supreme Court. This matter is completely out of the Peoples’ hands. Judges will have the final say.
Prevailing opinions say repealing DADT through Congress is the only reliable way towards allowing gays and lesbians to eventually serve openly in uniform. And there is hope. Legislation is winding its way through Congress, but is currently stalled in the Senate. President Obama says he supports repeal and will sign a bill containing repeal if it reaches his desk.(17) However, many say he’s tepid in his support. The bill will never reach his desk unless the People act - NOW.
The Senate returns on November 15th for a lame duck session before they adjourn for the end of the year. The exact mechanics of repeal today are complicated with such a short amount time between now and year’s end. (5) The prospects for repeal are dim after the midterm elections bolstered conservative voices who oppose repeal. The chances drop to near zero after the new, more conservative Congress is seated in January 2011.
Hey You - Yes, You!
How can you help? Act now and ensure Congress, specifically the Senate, hears your voice. Call your Senators - both of them. Ask to speak to them personally. If that’s not possible, leave a message with their aide. If no one answers the phone, leave a voice mail. Then, pick up a pen and paper and actually write a letter. Having to open an envelope and read someone's handwriting shows much more effort than sending an eMail. Too much to ask? Then at least send an eMail. Find their Twitter or Facebook account and leave a message there. It’s not as effective, but it’s better than nothing.
If the repeal effort fails in December, we must start rebuilding the repeal effort. For the ambitious, start a petition for repeal. Collect as many signatures as possible and mail it to your senators, congressman, and the President. The next time your lawmakers come to town, schedule an in-district visit and meet with your representatives. Better yet, lobby Congress yourself. It’s easy, just call your representatives' Washington office and schedule a meeting. Fly up and meet with them. I did it in May 2010 with a couple hundred other veterans when we ‘stormed Capitol Hill’ and asked Congress to repeal DADT. (30)
The repeal community has played all of these cards to get Congress to act. We swamped the phone lines in Congress. We collected thousands of post card petitions and delivered them to our lawmakers. Documentaries were produced and books were written. A handful of veterans used nonviolent protest and civil disobedience to get the media to pay attention to the issue. If you truly care about this issue, you might consider doing same if you want to see real progress. It worked for Ghandi, why not you?
Bottom line: Every person who dons the uniform of their country deserves the same respect and treatment as their peers. American gay and lesbian servicemembers currently are denied equality while they defend America's values of freedom, liberty, and justice. What will you do to speak for those who defend your freedom of speech, yet do not have it themselves?
The United States Air Force has three core values:
1 - Integrity First
2 - Service before self
3 - Excellence in all we do
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" violates the first core value, takes advantage of the second, and compromises the third.
This last part was great. I learned a lot from your essay, and I have to say, this is the first one when I haven't had much bad things to say :) Honestly, truly, it's great as it stands (beside my suggestions for change or adding) Fantastic work :) -andrea
1. Chase, Philander D. "Friedrich Wilhelm Von Steuben." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 11 Nov. 2010. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben>.
2. Shilts, Randy. "Prologue." Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military. New York: St. Martin's, 1993. Print.
3. "TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART II, CHAPTER 37, § 654." Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 Feb. 2010. Web 13 Nov. 2010. <http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C37.txt>.
4. "Sexual Orientation and Military Service." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 12 Nov. 2010. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service#Countries_that_disallow_homosexuals_from_serving_in_the_military>.
5. Nicholson, Alex. "The Path Forward on DADT During the Lame Duck." YouTube, Servicemembers United Channel. 28 Oct. 2010. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzwNCOxDRW4&feature=player_embedded>.
6. Stewart, Chuck. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell - History." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 13 Nov. 2010. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask_don't_tell#History>.
7. "Truman Library: Desegregation of the Armed Forces Online Research File." Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology>.
8. Belkin, Aaron. "New Study: Obama Can Halt Gay Discharges With Executive Order." Palm Center. 11 May 2009. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New Study Says Obama Can Halt Gay Discharges With Executive Order>.
9. "H.R. 5136: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (GovTrack.us)." GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress. 28 May 2010. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-5136>.
10. Partridge, Teddy. "SASC Approves DADT 'Repeal' 16-12." Fire Dog Lake. 27 May 2010. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://my.firedoglake.com/teddysanfran/2010/05/27/sasc-approves-dadt-repeal-16-12-house-full-vote-tonight-or-friday/>.
11. Flaherty, Anne. "'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Senate Repeal Defeated By GOP Filibuster." The Huffington Post. 21 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal_3_n_733565.html>.
12. Multiple. "Lawrence v. Texas." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas>.
13. Kozloski, Michael J. (2010) 'Homosexual Moral Acceptance and Social Tolerance: Are the Effects of Education Changing?', Journal of Homosexuality, 57: 10, 1370 — 1383.
14. "AGLP History." Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://www.aglp.org/pages/chistory.html>.
15. "History of US Military Policies, towards Gays from 1776 to 2009." ReligiousTolerance.org. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 31 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mili3.htm>.
16. "GAO Report on Gays in the Military." FORDHAM.EDU. Fordham University, 12 June 1992. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gao_report.html>.
17. Obama, Barack H. "Equality Is a Moral Imperative." Organizing for America. Barack Obama, 28 Feb. 2008. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/gGggJS>.
18. "Overturning 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': A National Security Victory." National Security Network. 13 Oct. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1755>.
19. Scarborough, Rowan. "New Top Marine Backs Gay Ban." Washington Times. 10 Nov. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/10/new-top-marine-backs-gay-ban/>.
20. "Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell Now." Human Rights Campaign. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://www.hrc.org/sites/repealdadt/learn_more.asp>.
21. "Alexander Nicholson." The Faces of DADT. Servicemembers United. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://facesofdadt.org/?p=215>.
22. Davis, Bill. "Alexander the Gay." Charleston City Paper. 18 Jan. 2006. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/feature-zwnj-alexander-the-gay/Content?oid=1103512>.
23. Shear, Michael D. "McCain Appears to Shift on 'don't Ask, Don't Tell'" Washington Post. Washington Post, 3 Feb. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020202588.html>.
24. "Supporting the 1993 Law That Supports Morale and Readiness." Flag & General Officers for the Military. Center for Military Readiness, 30 Mar. 2009. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://www.flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com/>.
25. Goldman, Russ. "'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': Robert Gates, Mike Mullen Testify to Overturn Military Ban on Gays." ABC News. 2 Feb. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gays-military-dont-ask-dont-tell-robert-gates-mike-mullen-testify-overturn-ban/story?id=9721330>.
26. Johnson, Chris. "New Report Undermines Officers’ Letter Supporting ‘Don’t Ask’." Washington Blade. 3 Mar. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/03/03/new-report-undermines-officers%E2%80%99-letter-supporting-%E2%80%98don%E2%80%99t-ask%E2%80%99/>.
27. McMorris-Santoro, Evan. "Family Research Council: End Of DADT Means More Gay Rape In The Military | TPMDC." Talking Points Memo DC. 26 May 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/family-research-council-end-of-dadt-means-more-gay-rape-in-the-military.php>.
28. Bedwell, Michael. "Gay Veterans Gallery." LeonardMatlovich.com. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://www.leonardmatlovich.com/gayveteransgallery.html>.
29. Sizemore, Bill. "Ex-Marine Walks to D.C. to Push 'don't Ask' Repeal." HamptonRoads.com. 21 May 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://hamptonroads.com/2010/05/exmarine-walks-dc-push-dont-ask-repeal>.
30. Colbert, Chuck. "Vets Keep Pressure on for DADT Repeal." Bay Windows. 21 May 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=105969>.
Comments (1)
Andrea said
at 12:36 pm on Nov 16, 2010
Some suggestions on arrangement (without reading it), switch the Status Quo and the Lame Duck. You may also wish to create a new section on "opinons" on DADT, in which you combine the the military doesnt want repeal, the troops, and it doesn't matter.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.