Revocation of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Nathan Bryant

SOC 120

Prof. Christine Villasenor

March 28, 2011

Introduction

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy has effectively allowed the gay and lesbian members of the US Army to function without coming out in the open. The policy is dual-dimensional in the fact that it also bars the military from engaging in any inquiries based on the orientation of the service member. Even though homosexuality is becoming an accepted part of our society, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is a fair piece of legislation that protects our Uniform Code of Military Justice system. It is the best legislative option for protecting the rights of homosexuals, allowing them to serve, and to do so free of harassment or personal threat from others. Don't Ask, Don't Tell also respects the thoughts and feelings of the majority, Christians, and those that believe the actions of gays is wrong, unnatural, or otherwise disagree with homosexuality. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a perfect compromise and should not be changed. Don't Ask, Don't Tell creates a balance that no other policy can be expected to provide. Factors that influence the performance of the military may be affected adversely if the sexual orientation of service members was to be exposed as anything other than 'straight'. The replacement of DADT would undermine the discipline that is essential for the effective and efficient functioning of the military.

The United States government's continuation of DADT is the best compromise; allowing gays to serve and respecting the common views of others who believe homosexuality is indecent sexual conduct.

Army Doctrine Facts

According to Army Regulation 600-200, Chapter 15, the sexual orientation of a service member is the service member's personal issue and is not an element that can make an individual ineligible to serve in the armed forces. Furthermore, an inquiry into alleged homosexual conduct cannot be carried out in the US Army by an officer unless and until the officer is of a Brigadier General rank. In this regard, it is imperative that the commander ensures that the information upon which the inquiry is based is significant enough to qualify the suspected member of discharge. Examples of credible information include cases such as the statement of a soldier regarding his bisexual or homosexual orientation, an attempt on the soldier's part to engage in homosexual act, the solicitation of such an act or the engagement of the soldier in a homsexual act. The essence of these cases is that the commander must have substantial information to assert that the soldier may, is wanting to, or has, engaged in sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex. However, if it is observed that the soldier's homosexual conduct came from a desire to terminate military service, then the individual can be detained. Examples of unreliable information that cannot initiate a fact-finding inquiry are: possession of homosexual materials (pornographic or otherwise), visiting a known homosexual bar, club, or other establishment, or untrustworthy statements from a fellow service member to commanders (rumors). Generally speaking, in ...