Tags: Dont | Ask | Dont | Tell | gay | military | media

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Should Go

Tuesday, 27 Jul 2010 03:19 PM

By John Stossel

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
America is one of many countries that forbid openly gay people to serve in the military. Others are: Cuba, China, Egypt, Greece, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Turkey, and Venezuela.

See a pattern?

With a few exceptions, those are not countries where free people want to live.

By contrast, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain all allow gay people to serve.

No country has America's in-between policy: Gays can serve — as long as no one finds out about it. Where did that come from?

It happened because Bill Clinton campaigned for the presidency promising to allow gays to serve. After his election, the Democratic Congress decreed that "the presence in the Armed Forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk."

So a compromise was born. The media labeled it "don't ask, don't tell."

Since then, nearly 12,500 service members have been discharged because of their sexual orientation. These have included 800 "mission critical" troops such as Arabic linguists (59 of them), Farsi linguists (nine), medics, pilots, and intelligence analysts.

Among the Arabic linguists discharged was Lt. Dan Choi, who will be a guest on my TV show Thursday night. The show will also debate the rules on porn and sex on TV.

In May, the House of Representatives voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," but only after the Defense Department studies the matter and the president, secretary of defense, and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declare that ending the policy would not reduce military effectiveness. The Senate has not voted on its version of bill.

So, should it be repealed? Here are some things to consider:

The American Psychological Association states: "Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment, and retention . . . When openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, there has been no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness."

OK, of course they said that. It's the APA. But that doesn't make them wrong.

The Government Accountability Office studied four countries that allow gays to serve — Canada, Israel, Germany, and Sweden. It found that "military officials from each country said that, on the basis of their experience, the inclusion of homosexuals in their militaries has not adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale."

How would members of America's military feel about repeal of the policy? A Military Times poll found: 71 percent of respondents said they would continue to serve if the policy were overturned, 10 percent said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours.

That's a pretty strong majority for acceptance.

Where do I come down on this issue? It's easy. I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. I don't think government should have any role in our sex lives.

Just as I see no reason why gays should not be free to marry, I see no reason why they shouldn't be free to be in the military.

As I wrote in the conclusion to "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity": "I want government to leave people alone. I think people should be free to do anything they want — as long as they don't hurt anyone else. I may disagree with their choices, but I don't think The State should take their choices away."

I draw my inspiration from Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek. He wrote a postscript to his classic, "The Constitution of Liberty," titled, "Why I Am Not a Conservative," in which he said, "One of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal (today I call it "libertarian") position is based on courage . . . to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead.

I'm with Hayek. Unless we do identifiable harm to others, the state should leave us alone.



© Creators Syndicate Inc.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Immigration Policy Borders on Absurd

Wednesday, 17 Sep 2014 13:21 PM

America needs immigrants. Immigrants co-founded most of Silicon Valley's start-ups. The Patent Office says immigrants in . . .

No Safer With Aggressive Foreign Policy

Wednesday, 10 Sep 2014 09:20 AM

We don't know what our interventions will bring. If we remove ISIS, we remove the biggest threat to terrorist cells like . . .

Let Markets Solve Environmental Problems

Thursday, 04 Sep 2014 12:37 PM

When possible, let markets and property protect nature. . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, NewsmaxWorld, NewsmaxHealth, are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved