Critical Thinking
HU345-02
Unit 9
Final Project
Gays in the Military
Diana Brown
Professor RonaldDean Davenport
Kaplan University

Gays in the Military The United States has been faced with different debates. Gays in the military has been one of the strongest political debates since the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy started almost two decades ago. A majority of democrats wanted to allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces, and the republicans completely opposed; they wanted to keep this policy, solely to ban gays from serving openly in the military. The policy completely prohibited homosexuals from serving in the military; if it was any suspicion of a person being homosexual, regardless if they were or not engaging in homosexual conduct, they were put under investigation; if it was determine that the person in fact was homosexual, they were immediately discharged. This was not only unfair, but discriminatory and at the same time unconstitutional. It is hard to understand how they got away with this for so long; this simply did not make any sense. For some Congress’ members and military officials the fear was that by allowing gays to serve openly in the military could cause more casualties and would endangered the troops.. In an interview with newspapers and wire service reporters at the Pentagon, Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps at the time said: "you don't want anything distracting. . . . Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines' lives." Amos was vague when pressed to clarify how the presence of gays would distract Marines during a firefight. But he cited a recent Defense Department survey, in which a large percentage of Marine combat veterans predicted that repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law would harm "unit cohesion" and their tight-knit training for war. (Chapman, 2010).

These statements from Gen. Amos showed not to be totally accurate; quite of few countries already had allowed gays in uniform—including allies that had fought alongside our troops, such as Britain, Canada, and Australia. Just as it was plenty of opposition in the U.S. ranks, it was plenty of opposition when they changed their policies. In Canada, 45 percent of service members said they would not work with gay colleagues, and a majority of British soldiers and sailors rejected the idea. There were warnings that hordes of military personnel would quit and promised youngsters would refuse to enlist. (Chapman, 2010).
But then, when the new day arrived, it turned out to be a big, fat non-event. The Canadian government reported "no effect." The British government observed "a marked lack of reaction." An Australian veterans group that opposed admitting gays later admitted that the services "have not had a lot of difficulty in this area." (Chapman, 2010).
Israel, being small, surrounded by hostile powers, and obsessed with security, could not afford to jeopardize its military strength for the sake of prissy ventures in political correctness. But its military not only accepted gays, it provided benefits to their same-sex partners, as it did with spouses. Had that policy sap Israel's military might? Its enemies did not seem eager to test the proposition. (Chapman, 2010).
You could argue that none of these experiences were relevant, since, being Americans, we are utterly unique. But our soldiers did not seem to have any trouble fighting alongside gay soldiers from allied nations. And not only that, but it turned out the U.S. military itself had tried the same policy with satisfactory results. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. John Shalikashvili pointed out that "enforcement of the ban was suspended without problems during the Persian Gulf War, and there were no reports of angry departures." That's right: We fought a war without the ban, and we won. In a pinch, our heterosexual men and women in uniform confirmed, they can function perfectly well amid openly gay colleagues. (Chapman, 2010).
When military officials experienced this during the Persian Gulf War, they should it know that it was time to start pushing for some changes in the armed forces; keeping this policy in force was only preventing intelligent and highly skilled people from doing what they loved to do best, defend their country; something really needed to be done. My suggestion is that we end this unconstitutional policy as soon as we can the sooner the better.
People needed to change and accept the changes that come as time changes; the same way technology advances, we need to advance to be able to make it in today’s world. Adapting and accepting is not easy thing to do for everyone, but with effort it can be done; once we learned to accept the changes it is only easier. We are all created equal, we cannot forget that. We have laws and we need to follow them and respect them, those laws were made for everyone, not just for some people.
I firmly believe that for many years the non-discrimination laws were broken and not followed. “The Civil Rights Act of 1991, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.” (EEOC).
“The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on conduct to include discrimination based on sexual orientation.” (EEOC). ). My proposal is that this change as we would try to change any other broken law. This battle started since 1993, when President Bill Clinton hoped to end the ban and authorized the “don’t ask” as a compromise, more than 13,000 troops had been discharge under the policy; so for almost two decades gays and lesbians that served in the armed forces to defend their country, were forced to lie about who they were. This always bothered me, and my question was about integrity; how could they talk about integrity? That was contradicting, my suggestion was for each American to act with honesty and respect regardless of color, race, religion, sex preference, and social status; we all are God’s children. Then after the long years’ legislative debate over the policy finally senators voted 65 to 31 to send the repeal legislation to President Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to eliminate the ban on gays serving openly. Eight Republicans joined 57 members of the Democratic caucus; four senators did not vote. (O'Keefe, 2010). President Obama said in a statement "It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed." (O'Keefe, 2010). Totally agree with the President.
The vote came after an exhaustive Pentagon review found that allowing gays to serve openly posed a "low risk" of disruption and that a large majority of troops expected that it would have little or no effect on their units. Top Pentagon officials - who lobbied vigorously for repeal, in part because they feared that a court-ordered lifting of the ban would be far more disruptive - said that it would take months and perhaps longer to implement the new policy. "We will be a better military as a result," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (O'Keefe, 2010). This debate came to an end when President Barack Obama signed a landmark law repealing the ban on gay men and women serving openly in the military, fulfilling one of his major campaign pledges and casting the issue as a matter of civil rights long denied. (Whitlock, 2010). "No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love," Obama said. The new law ends the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy that forced gays to hide their sexual orientation or face dismissal. Its repeal comes as the American public has become more tolerant on such issues as gay marriage and gay rights in general. (Whitlock, 2010). It is no doubt in my mind that it takes a very special person to serve in the military, and not everyone is willing to sacrifice their freedom and life to defend their country; if gays and lesbians are willing to serve in the military it shouldn’t matter what their sexual orientation is, as long as they are capable of uphold the military standards of the service branch they decide to joined; they are no different from anyone else, my belief is that they can do as good in a job anywhere as anybody else; gays and lesbians had been serving for generations with honor and distinction.

References
Chapman, Steve. "Buried Thruths About Gays in the Military." Archives 2010. N.p., 8 February 2010. Web. 13 Feb 2011. http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/08/buried-truths-about-gays-in-th
Obama signs repeal of "don't ask, don't tell". (2010, December 22). Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40777922/ns/politics-white_house/
O'Keefe, Ed. (Staff Writter). (2010). 'Don't ask, don't tell' is repealed by senate; bill awaits Obama's signing. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121801729.html
United States. Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination., Web. 14 Feb 2011. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
Withlock, Craig. (Staff Writer). (2010). Marine general suggests repeal of 'don't ask' could result in casualties. [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121404985.html