Effects of repealing ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ in Britain
August 25th, 2011
excerpt from an article found here:
…there are many British military personnel who believe the “gay-friendly” military there has done damage to morale and discipline.
“But you will not find any senior people within the military who will admit that,” he shares, “because they know that if they are going to maintain their careers, they’ve got to tow the political line.”
Judge says just as in the U.S., homosexual activists in Britain were instrumental in getting their agenda foisted on the military. “This whole issue is not about equality, it is not about tolerance — because those who are advocating these things do not want equality for Christians to be able voice their concerns. And they will not tolerate opposition,” he adds.
Loading ...
So your answer is to not tolerate gays and lesbians, let alone recognize them for the marvelous contributions they can/do give to the military. Does Christianity really call for this type of intolerance? Are you suggesting that a morale issue exists because some ( really, how many?) straight soldiers may now know a gay soldier fighting at their side? Bottom line: Other than animus towards gays and lesbians, is there any other possible reason for anyone to oppose the repeal of DADT?
On one hand, I agree with Rich. This blog is not the appropriate place to discuss DADT, and DADT has appeared only rarely on this site accordingly. The subjects are different.
On the other hand, I understand where Betsy is coming from. Some of the issues and political tactics are similar what we have seen in the marriage debate.
I don’t much care about what the British military does as long as they can fulfill their NATO obligations. That is their business based on their laws and culture. We cut our legal ties to England over two hundred years ago. I like the Brits, but I am glad we did. My main concern with DADT was maintaining section 8 of article I of the Constitution against judicial activism. Even the Obama administration was defending that part of the constitution in court.
My biggest concern with the laws governing the military (after setting aside the larger issues of war and peace) is that the last big experiment we tried, integrating women into the ranks, was a scandalous disaster for many women. (See, for example, http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2010/12/2010122182546344551.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2011/jul/21/rape-shame-us-military ) The Obama administration appears powerless to do much about this, official policies notwithstanding. This was a failed experiment that should be recognized as such. Whether it will also serve as a cautionary tale remains to be seen.
Getting back to Betsy’s posting about DADT. If the charge in the posting is true, then pointing this out is not animus, it is honest reporting. The politics of suppressing opinion is a common topic on this blog. I hope we don’t reach the point in this country where a politically inconvenient fact is suppressed because of fears of the charge of animus. That would surely be contrary to the spirit of the free expression.
We would all agree, I hope, that free expression is paramount in all discussions regarding DADT ( and, of course, all discussions in general). My issue with the post concerns the following: Yes, there are some in the British military (American, too) who are uncomfortable with the recognition that gay military personnel can be open, fully commissioned and free from harassment once DADT is repealed. But, it is this very homophobia and ignorance of the truly valuable contributions that gay soldiers can/do offer in service to their country that must be addressed. The same issue applies to women in the military. If there are men who are uncomfortable with women, prone to expressing their natural desires through rape and intimidation or misogynistic then they need to be retrained, court marshalled or discharge from the military. You suggest Leo, that it’s the fault of gays and women if the military is uncomfortable, unable to perform at peak. The “blame the victim” mentality can never be condoned. As a high school teacher, my students would understand this very simple concept of right and wrong. Some of them are our future military leaders. They get it.
Many of my family members and friends serve or have served in the military, and not a one of them has had a problem serving with gay service members. Why should you care about the sexual orientation of the person who may save your life?
If anything, it is heterosexual men in the military abusing women who are a problem — perhaps banning straight men would further unit cohesion and improve morale?
May I point out that there was never a “dont ask dont tell ” policy in the UK. Homosexuality was made legal in the UK military in, I think, 1999 .
There have been many stories in the media about how well the change went If you do aquick search you will find that civil unions have even been performed on RN ships at sea.
I particularly like the story of the young trooper in Afghanistan ,shown shown with his “tentmates”,lying on his Zac Efron duvet!
If you look at the artcle in question you will see that it is an opinion piece and completly fact free. I checked back to the Christia Institutes archive and found nothing there in suport of the claims.
The Institute , by the way , is a small pressure group nothing like the size of NOM or the sort of Christian organizations you may be used to.
@Rich
“You suggest Leo, that it’s the fault of gays and women if the military is uncomfortable, unable to perform at peak.” Actually, I didn’t say that. I didn’t even say that the UK forces are unable to perform at their peak. Please don’t attribute to me things I didn’t say.
I did say that the integration of women into the ranks has hurt women, and that I blame not the women, who are the victims, but the foolish policy makers that needless put them at heightened risk. A commander who puts his troops at needless risk is responsible, not the victims. A female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html