Ed Vitagliano
AFA Journal news editor
June 2007 – You have to give homosexual activists credit for one thing: They never give up. Once again their efforts – and those of others who sympathize – are putting pressure on the policy which bans gays and lesbians from serving in the U.S. military.
In late February Rep. Martin Meehan (D-MA) reintroduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (H.R. 1246) in the U.S. House of Representatives.
According to the wording of the bill, H.R. 1246 would “enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
While homosexuals have always been banned from serving in the military, in 1993 the Clinton Administration instituted the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). The policy forbids military officials from inquiring about sexual orientation (“don’t ask”), which in practice allows homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation to themselves (“don’t tell”).
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a national non-profit group dedicated to seeing the ban on homosexuals in the military lifted, has been vocal in its support of H.R. 1246. In April SLDN sponsored a blitz of House members, during which 200 supporters visited the offices of every representative, asking for their support.
At least 118 members of the House have currently said they would co-sponsor the proposed measure.
Many soldiers oppose
How do soldiers feel about the possibility of serving in a foxhole with a homosexual? If one accepted the word of members of the liberal media, it would be difficult to get a clear answer.
For example, in its editorial calling for the end of DADT, USA Today cited a Zogby Poll in which 73% of troops said they were “comfortable” in the presence of homosexuals.
What the editorial failed to mention was that the Zogby Poll included a more specific question than the rather vague concept of being “comfortable” around gays and lesbians.
According to Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR, www.cmrlink.org), when the Zogby Poll asked, “Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?”, only 26% of military personnel said they agreed, while 37% disagreed. In addition, 32% said they were neutral while 5% said they weren’t sure.
“This is hardly a mandate for radical change,” Donnelly said.
Other polls reveal the same antipathy among members of the military toward allowing gays to serve.
CMR said that in two separate surveys of active duty military personnel, 59% of respondents answered “No” to the question, “Do you think openly homosexual people should be allowed to serve in the military?” Only 30% said “Yes,” with 10% expressing “No Opinion.”
Only a small percentage of discharges
Opponents of DADT, however, point to the fact that, since the policy was instituted, almost 11,000 soldiers have been discharged for being homosexual. According to USA Today’s editorial, that is “the equivalent of an Army division.”
With military personnel deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, discharging gays and lesbians doesn’t make sense, the editorial argued. “Today, with the military stretched thin and changed public attitudes, it’s time to dump the policy and put anti-discrimination standards into place,” it said.
But according to CMR, figures released by the Pentagon’s Office of Personnel and Readiness reveal that the number of soldiers discharged because they violated DADT is relatively small. Those sent packing for reasons related to sexual orientation represented just 0.4% of all discharges.
Still, activists argue, it is a waste of money for the military to train people, discharge them for being gay and then pay to train someone else to take their place. According to the Washington Post, a study released by the University of California-Santa Barbara said the financial costs associated with discharging military personnel under DADT amounted to $364 million between 1994 and 2003.
However, Donnelly said that, compared to the roughly 9,500 discharged for homosexuality between 1994 and 2003, more than 26,000 women were sent packing because of pregnancy; more than 36,000 were discharged for “violations of weight standards;” more than 38,000 for “serious offenses;” almost 21,000 for “parenthood;” and more than 59,000 for “drug offenses/use.”
The military was forced to absorb similar costs when personnel were prematurely discharged for all of the above reasons – but considers that part of the cost for producing an effective military. Would it make sense for the military to keep soldiers who are overweight or on drugs, for example, simply to keep from losing the money expended on training?
Obviously not. Trimming the unfit – whatever the cost – is part of the price we pay for producing a leaner, more competent and, yes, more lethal military.
And it is that consideration that requires the military to keep homosexual soldiers out of its units. As Donnelly said, the military’s laws and policies regarding homosexuality “notes that in combat, bonds of personal trust and unit cohesion are essential for mission accomplishment.”
She said, “Simply stated in gender-neutral terms, the law says that in conditions ‘characterized by forced intimacy, with little or no privacy,’ persons should not have to expose themselves to persons who might be sexually attracted to them. The same principle protects privacy between military men and women. … It encourages good order and discipline by respecting the normal human desire for modesty in sexual matters.”
AFA is asking supporters to contact their U.S. representative and ask them to reject H.R. 1246. 
