The best magazine
Aside from the obvious human rights issues, for an all volunteer military there is no beneficial aspect of a policy that excludes a qualified section of the population on the basis of sexual orientation.
The military is not better for this policy and in fact this policy actually is the antithesis of what the military actually stands for; a life with honor, a dedication to truth and the premise that an individual is judged by his or her performance.
Right or wrong when instituted DADT was a transitional approach, but now that society has for the most part made that transition it is time for the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to be repealed.
The issue of sexual orientation and the workplace has in large measure been dealt with in the public sector and is no longer an issue.
It is now our politicians and the leadership of our armed services that need to play "catch up".
Arguments such as "the soldier should have a say" or that the military needs more time to adjust, or that it will affect mission readiness are less than adequate to justify further delay.
First, the "soldier" is given precious little say in anything they do, why should this be different? Second, the time it takes to amend and reprint the Military Code of Conduct should be minimal as there are already a large number of anti-discrimination sections that could be easily altered and lastly, leadership is the primary determinant in mission readiness and success.
In these times it is hard to imagine any military leader that would not utilize the members of his command in the best way possible to insure success, with nary a thought as to sexual preference of those involved.
Security considerations such as blackmail opportunities are actually lessened by the repeal of this policy.
Coming out is no longer met with the shock or disdain as in times past, frankly for most of the public it is not much of an event and quickly dismissed as inconsequential.
Safety considerations for current service people should be examined, but most if not all of these types of issues will quickly dissipate with minimal training and as a new set of social norms are accepted.
We do a disservice to the members of our armed services by maintaining this antiquated policy.
First we make the assumption that they require some sort of remedial attention and preparation to cope with an issue that in the real world is a non-issue.
It would hard to imagine in today's works place any co-worker requesting or receiving any special consideration with regards to the sexual orientation of his or hers co-workers.
In fact to even suggest such a course of action would cost an individual their position and leave the company open to the possibility of massive litigation.
The people serving in our military are better than that, and as recent studies illustrate, they for the most part do not see this as an issue or concern.
The military for the majority of those who serve is a short visit and not one of life's primary destinations.
Skills, attitudes, and the knowledge gained in their service to their country should be readily transferable to the public sector.
By treating sexual orientation in a way that is counter to the rest of society's understanding and acceptance, handicaps our service people as they complete their service and enter the public sector.
As members of the GOP we are not and should not try to act as the moral authorities for the country.
Moral certainty on such matters is not always popular among most Americans and we are ill-advised to base our politics on such.
According to most polls the majority of the people do not oppose the repeal of this policy therefore there is little or no political gain in winning this argument.
Several courts have already ruled against the DADT policy and it is a matter of a very short time and the point will be moot.
Time and society have spoken and this is not a fight that we will win, it is time to focus our resources elsewhere.
As Republicans we need to pick our fights and more importantly we need to be on the "Right" side of the issues we are to take arms for.
Source: ...