Allowing Gays in the Military Would Be Unfair and Hurt Troop Morale
Law protects soldiers and has withstood court challenges. Obama owes it to his troops to leave it be
Honorable discharges of gays who were misled about eligibility to serve are far fewer than losses due to pregnancy or weight standard violations. Clarify the meaning of the law, and such discharges could drop to near zero. There is no national security argument for legislation that would undermine recruiting, retention, and readiness in the all-volunteer force.
A distinguished group of retired flag and general officers recently delivered to Obama and Congress a statement supporting the 1993 law, signed by more than 1,000 retired officers, including 51 of four-star rank. Noting that it "protect[s] good order, discipline, and morale in the unique environment of the military," the officers wrote, "As a matter of national security, we urge you to support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, and to oppose any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law."
This is good advice—Obama and Congress should take it.
Back to Two Takes
Read: Don't Discount Contributions and Heroism of Gays in the Military
- Check out our political cartoons.
- Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our new digital magazine.
Reader Comments
If you won't say it to his/her face...
Would you tell it to the face of a would-be African immigrant who has AIDS to "forget about coming to America because 'we don't want their aids"?
Would you tell it to the face of a woman that she shouldn't have the right to vote because "women aren't as smart as men"?
Would you tell it to the face of an African-American that they shouldn't dream big because they are "inferior"?
No sensible person would say anything of the sort to their faces. So what makes it o.k. to tell a gay/lesbian person that he/she should not be allowed to serve their country because "their sexual orientation undermines unit cohesion and military discipline"?
None of the above reasons barring civil rights makes any sense and is not grounded in fact. This is not just a matter of civil rights but of respect. It should be considered cowardly for a legislator to draft discriminatory laws, but not have the words to say when confronted on the issue by a gay or lesbian person.
New rule-If you can't say it to his/her face, err on the side of respect and civil liberties.
It's 2009
I can't believe that there is a law like that, how long did it take our political leaders to pass that worthless bill. If we could send another 100,000 troops over seas to help the already tired and home sick troops back to there families do you really think they are going to care if they are Gay. Move on Donnelly check out the calender it's 2009. Oh by the way I'm married with two kids.
If you need a translator
and the only one is gay - would you say to keep him/her out? That's just plain dumb.
The world is full of gay and straight people. We all live and work every day with a variety of people, and thye do not threaten our well-being. Just as women should be allowed in the military if they can meet the same guidelines as the men, gays should be allowed in if thye have proven their loyalty to this nation and they can meet the same guidelines.
Why are we always protecting "phobic" men?
I say get rid of the ban. Let's get rid of people who are unable to do the job, are disloyal, are disruptive. There are just as many straight folks as gays who are disgusting and incompetent.
Civilized people all over the world do not ask if people are gay or straight when they meet. They ask if they are law-abiding, caring, hard-working, moral people.
This country really is so backwards about homsexuality. And I'm a straight person...
advertisement
