Don’t Ask [the Right Questions], Don’t Tell [the Truth]: The Logic of Congress and Other Special People

Watching and listening to politicians wrangle over the “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays in the Military is yet another instance of the peoples’ elected representatives failing to deal with the issue in a complete and informed manner. Given the historic homophobic and anti-homosexual biases that have run rampant through our society, it is not surprising that there has been an issue on whether gays in the military are a socially, politically and militarily practical or acceptable concept. But now is not then. Today, Americans are generally aware enough to recognize and accept that being gay is an accepted and protected status under our Constitutional framework and democratic principles. This does not mean that there are not plenty of persons who treat gays as social pariahs and occasions in which they are at risk of being maligned, maltreated, and murdered. So while Congress and the Military leadership determine if it is acceptable for some who is gay to be ‘openly’ gay while in military service, shouldn’t they have raised some pertinent questions on this issue as part of their responsibility to the public that they are expressly dedicated to serve? [I recognize that the following questions may have been asked by someone earlier, but I haven’t noticed that these issues have been given any noteworthy attention by Congress, the Military, or the Media and thus appear to me to be unasked.]

By disallowing gays to serve openly in the military; the Government, Congress, Military, and other like-policy supporting organization/groups are limiting the representation of gays in the armed forces which effectively increases the representation of heterosexual individuals in the Military. Thus the lives of heterosexual men and women are placed at greater risk simply on a statistical basis. And why would the country, Government, Military, and Congress place a lower value on a heterosexual life? There is no way around the fact that excluding one group from the risks that military personnel face places it’s contra-group directly in the position to absorb that risk. Thus injuries to and the deaths of heterosexual military personnel are proportionately increased. If you accept an scientific perspective on evolution, you might want to consider what unintended consequences follow from the current policy.

On another front, why are the Government, Congress and Military creating a security risk for themselves and America? It seems odd that the very people charged with securing the blessing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are and have been instrumental in establishing a means to coerce military personnel to fear for their life and/or career? It doesn’t take much mental effort or insight to deduce the consequences of a “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” policy or harsher previous incarnations of the military’s policies toward gays with respect to the security vulnerability that they directly create. Further, even with their current policy, they haven’t recognized the inherent advantages that their own policy gives them if they established a process for protecting individuals exposed to such threats.

Lastly, what do our governmental and military leaders think the consequences are to expressly and aggressively treating one group of people as unequal and unacceptable in either our general society or even just within our military society. Do they think that such mental and behavioral distinctions will have no consequential implications for how the broader governmental and military policies will view other groups: be they racial, gender, ethnic, or religious in nature? When we accept that it individuals can be treated unequally for one dimension of their being; is it not easier to treat another group in some other rationalized unequal manner?

In our society and system of government, we should be striving to have everyone held to the same high standard of freedom, liberty and responsibility. While it is not simple or easy to live and exist in a pluralistic society, and I struggle to be open-minded about many groups myself; I don’t see why I can’t find a way to accept lifestyles that I don’t personally identify with. Perhaps it has helped to have lived through some of the turbulent social changes that America has struggled through over my life. Is extending the inclusive principle of our Democratic way of life any more unreasonable for gays than it has been for race, gender, nationality, religion, or even members of Congress?