Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > June > 12 > Entry
Editorial: Military’s anti-gay policy has to go
A deal struck in Washington late last month probably is going to pave the way for openly gay Americans to serve their country in uniform.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a Clinton-era policy that was an unsustainable compromise that allowed gays to be in the service so long as they were discreet.
Dayton-area House members — Mike Turner, Steve Austria and John Boehner — were on the wrong side, opposing the repeal.
The heads of the military wanted a Pentagon committee to be allowed to finish a review designed to figure out the speed bumps in implementing a repeal before Congress handed down any orders. That gave critics an excuse to vote no, but the Obama administration and the military and congressional negotiators agreed that the change wouldn’t happen until that report came in. It’s due before the end of the year.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a relic, born of efforts to do an end-run around a prejudice that, thankfully, is disappearing. It did some good by preventing inquisitions into the private sexual behavior of soldiers without cause. But by today’s standards, Don’t Ask falls woefully short.
It’s bad for the military and awful for gays who’ve committed and trained to give their all.
Don’t Ask is being used to unfairly drive out good people for the “crime” of simply being who they are. Poll after poll has shown a large majority of Americans favor allowing gays to serve openly in uniform.
All the arguments against allowing gays to serve have collapsed. Gay soldiers serve mostly silently right now. In other armies around the world, including those of many of the United States’ closest allies, they serve openly.
Those armies remain effective. The presence of openly gay soldiers doesn’t cause significant disruption in the ranks, hurt morale or compromise combat readiness.
Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a Fairborn native and Wayne High School graduate, is a particularly good example of the insane effect of today’s military policy. The highly decorated aviator with 18 years of distinguished service could be expelled from the service against his will any day simply because a civilian acquaintance told his commanders that he is gay.
Losing a highly trained airman like Lt. Col. Fehrenbach, with the Air Force’s nearly two decades of investment in his training, is nuts. What’s worse, imagine that happening just months or weeks before the rule changes.
Repeal supporters — a vote in the full Senate is the next step — are blunt that the urgency to move now is all about politics. If they wait until after the fall elections, there’s always a possibility that the turnover could thwart their effort. This is the moment, they say.
The compromise makes sense. It permits the Pentagon to make its report, and then Congress has 60 days to review it. Finally, President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, all must certify that dropping Don’t Ask won’t do any harm.
Critics have run out of ammo for a lost and immoral cause. It’s sad that Dayton-area lawmakers refused to be part of acknowledging what’s so patently right and smart.
Permalink | Comments (34) | Post your comment | Categories: Civil Rights, Editorials, National Politics, Scott Elliott
Comments
By huffington
June 12, 2010 8:53 AM | Link to this
It’s very important to get LGBT into the military. In fact, LGBT should be the first to be drafted into service when a draft is implemented. LGBT are recognizable leaders of Diversity, and as such have a special obligation to materially support the dominant political regime they help to create and nurture.
By Served and not gay
June 12, 2010 8:57 AM | Link to this
As long as the Dept of Defense acts in accordance with the UCMJ and in cases where it is clear that a military person solicited another person of the same sex then disciplinary action is warranted. Hearsay should not be a means for discharge. Gays will have to be careful to seek out other gays and not try to break up existing heterosexual marriages. If that happens then the military will be in deep trouble and no straight people will want to serve. Change it and we will see what happens.
By John Setty
June 12, 2010 9:03 AM | Link to this
I realize the DDN is pro anything homosexual,but don’t you think you should wait until the military conducts their study. For example the housing costs for personnel will increase at a time we have cannot or will not giving quaility health care to our veterans.
By Fat Boy
June 12, 2010 9:48 AM | Link to this
When is the military going to stop discriminating against fat people?
By parental
June 12, 2010 10:08 AM | Link to this
This will only work if EVERY person serving has a private room. If not, we are putting people in the same situation we would if we had co-ed rooms arbitrarily assigned. Showers? All must be private. In battle or basic training, I don’t see this happening. Hey parents…want to send your kid off to the military knowning this? I served with people I KNOW were gay. None were a problem as they kept it to themselves, but since they couldn’t tell the world they were gay, nobody was sure and they served. They knew the rules when they joined. Fehrenbach joined at a time when people were asked if they were gay. He lied a little I guess.
By Bill
June 12, 2010 10:16 AM | Link to this
Another nonsensical editorial by DDN. Fehrenbach served his country from the comfort of a supply or logistics base. As far as his experience he never served or trained in or for combat. Like it or not, hetrosexual troops are not going to feel comfortable living day in and day out with gay soldiers in that environment. Just like everything else born out of Barry Obama’s policies this too will very problematic for the “troops” on the ground. And we wonder why the trail lawyers love Obama. Just wait, I predict in 5 years their will be more “sexual” discrimination claims by the gays than all the others claims combined. I do think if we are going to repeal we get those female “majors” and “colonels” all the experience up front they desire.
By irishguy
June 12, 2010 11:08 AM | Link to this
The Military Times took a poll in 2008 which showed 58% of surveyed personnel were firmly against gays serving. With 10% saying they would leave the service and 14% saying they would strongly consider it. I think our elected officials should listen to those most effected by their decisions,for a change! Our Military isn’t a social experiment, it exists for our protection. Don’t ask don’t tell seems to be working well enough. It allows gays who wish to serve their Country the opportunity to do so. I fear this new policy will weaken our Military.
By TRS
June 12, 2010 12:01 PM | Link to this
While the DDN is entitled to an opinion, what the heck do they know about military readiness? What makes them experts? The wise and prudent thing would be to await the assessment but this is another thing progressives are trying to jam through. Assume for a moment the assessment came back recommending against repeal, does anyone really think this Congress and this President would abide by that? They, like the DDN, would assume themselves to be smarter and wiser than anyone else and implement the repeal anyway.
By General Gaylord
June 12, 2010 12:58 PM | Link to this
I love a man in uniform - let’s have a highly disciplined homosexual battalion!
By Bubba
June 12, 2010 1:03 PM | Link to this
Totally agree. As a matter of fact, make it a requirement! An all-gay army would scare the bageebers out of an invading force.
By Master Bates
June 12, 2010 1:20 PM | Link to this
Does bestiality disqualify you for military service? Just wondering.
By null
June 12, 2010 1:28 PM | Link to this
Who writes this stuff? Zippy The Pinhead…?
By wow
June 12, 2010 1:34 PM | Link to this
wow…all you can say as reading these comments is wow…they are proof in point that gays need to be protected. There is just too much ignorance and fear of gays in this world. you people are reall afraid of gay people! its really comical to be honest.
By wow
June 12, 2010 1:35 PM | Link to this
wow…all you can say as reading these comments is wow…they are proof in point that gays need to be protected. There is just too much ignorance and fear of gays in this world. you people are really afraid of gay people! its really comical to be honest.
By wow
June 12, 2010 1:36 PM | Link to this
wow…all you can say as reading these comments is wow…they are proof in point that gays need to be protected. There is just too much ignorance and fear of gays in this world. you people are really afraid of gay people! its really comical to be honest.
By wow
June 12, 2010 1:40 PM | Link to this
wow…all you can say as reading these comments is wow…they are proof in point that gays need to be protected. There is just too much ignorance and fear of gays in this world. you people are really afraid of gay people! its really comical to be honest. Breaking up marriages?!! cmon..you are being really ignorant if you think gay men walk around trying to hit on straight men all day and break up marriages….where do you get this stuff?!!! lol…its insane!
By wow
June 12, 2010 1:41 PM | Link to this
wow…all you can say as reading these comments is wow…they are proof in point that gays need to be protected. There is just too much ignorance and fear of gays in this world. you people are really afraid of gay people! its really comical to be honest. Breaking up marriages?!! cmon..you are being really ignorant if you think gay men walk around trying to hit on straight men all day and break up marriages….where do you get this stuff?!!! lol…its insane!
By irishguy
June 12, 2010 1:49 PM | Link to this
Gee, wow, I don’t see how any of these comments prove that gays need protection. I was in Mens Retail for years and worked with a few gay guys. There was no fear, I found my co-workers pretty entertaining. No big deal, but retail is hardly a life and death situation. There are gays serving now who are doing fine jobs and don’t need any protection. I just don’t think the House knows better than our folks in uniform.
By irishguy
June 12, 2010 2:01 PM | Link to this
General Gaylord, were you thinking something like this?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI&feature=fvw
By xlt
June 12, 2010 3:58 PM | Link to this
While in the military, we always had the opportunity to pick up women at the NCO club or, perhaps a club off base. Prostitution also existed. We had coed dorms so, there also was the opportunity to pick up a girl and take her back to your room. Dependent wives also had a tendency to stray; usually by frequenting the club while their husband was TDY. Some may remember the Tide box in the window signal. I remember meeting a 1st lieutenant at the base who was bringing his girlfriend up to live with him… Obviously not married. Anyway, the above listed actions; adultery, unlawful cohabitation and conduct unbecoming are currently in the UCMJ. But, appear acceptable practices for straight people. Certainly, there would be more Article 15 actions, if the issue was pushed. The rules already exist for straight or gay people. It is just how they are implemented.
By Quentin
June 12, 2010 4:11 PM | Link to this
Let the actual MILITARY make the decision. Yes the policy needs some tweaks at the very least but those screaming about the discrimination against gays sure don’t mind and even endorse other discriminations in the military and even in government so why are they crying? As for the violations xlt pointed out, I have seen some of that and also seen plenty of people busted for it and discharged as a result. It is also a bit different for those cases since that is on a base and not in a combat area which is a whole different situation. In combat bases it may not be really feasable and yes I know the supporters of this will now go off on me yet again claiming I am anti-gay or etc but that is the truth if they like it or not.
By xlt
June 12, 2010 7:33 PM | Link to this
I do agree that a Base is far different than a combat zone. The “violations” that occurred where I was stationed did not cause any discharges or reprimands. (1978-1982) They just occurred. There were many other incidents. Some involving officers and their wives, some enlisted and their wives. All were straight in nature. (kind of like that chief at WPAFB) Actually, I only remember one openly gay GI, who was promptly discharged. If there were others, they were closeted. It is not a matter of being pro- or anti-gay. The UCMJ already has set standards that should be followed. And, straight or gay, both sides should follow the same standards. For years now, a variety of “family values” conservatives in politics and religion have been outed. They were closeted gays. And, these were individuals that condemned gays and their lifestyles. And, there probably are many more in top level military positions yet to be outed.
By kl
June 12, 2010 8:45 PM | Link to this
Bill, You need to know your facts before you post. Fehrenbach saw a lot of combat time as a pilot. He is highly decorated for his service. All of the specifics, I do not know, but I do know that much.
By Wayne Grad
June 12, 2010 8:54 PM | Link to this
Bill you don’t know anything. Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot assigned to Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, Fehrenbach said he has nine Air Medals, including one for valor for assaulting an Iraqi ambush position while under heavy anti-aircraft fire during the first days of the invasion. He told Maddow that he and his wingman spotted a dozen armored personnel carriers laying in wait for advancing U.S. troops on their way to Baghdad. The wingman’s plane suffered a malfunction which made it impossible for him to accurately fire his weapons, Sarvis said, so in addition to unleashing his own he guided the wingman so that he could fire on target, as well, all while under fire. The two knocked out the ambush, he said.
By Bill
June 12, 2010 10:50 PM | Link to this
@wayne grad, there you have it, it must be gospel, Maddow, the voice of reason says its so. Get a grip, flying over is nothing like fighting on the ground, I stand by my comments.
By Max
June 13, 2010 9:19 AM | Link to this
Having served I agree with most field grade and general officers currently serving; the issue is NOT performance based but perception based. The military (Army) integrated minorities and women long before U.S. society was forced to do under Civil Rights legislation. The reason for this was PERFORMANCE not biased perceptions that women and minorities could not do jobs required by all. The phasing in of this policy is in excellent hands. The ‘moral outrage’ of some is curious when one considers the higher moral issues our troops face in combat. There are no gay bullets or bombs, there are no gay target solutions, there are no gay strategies or tactics. If the Flag represents all, then all should have an opportunity to participate in all the Flag represents. It is not an act of patriotism to diminish the ideals of this nation based upon individual, homophobic biases against those qualified and willing to serve.
By Quentin
June 13, 2010 9:53 AM | Link to this
Max, while some may be from people who dislike gays, a lot more is from people like me who see that there is plenty of other discrimination issues that are fully accepted and even endorsed by the same crowd so upset at this. Also there are actual issues and complications which we have brought up which are not really addressed properly. I will make part of it simple though, what items are you willing to cut in our budget to pay for any additional costs to impliment this and shouldn’t it be the military leaders who make the actual decision with the report out before politicians vote on what to do? Let’s try answering those first and go from there, ok?
By Ice Bandit
June 13, 2010 10:08 AM | Link to this
Remember a decade or so ago when the DDN opined favorably about women serving on naval ships. The wives of sailors, who knew exactly was getting ready to happen, protested to no avail. The result was chaos. Pregnancy, breakup of families, on ship jealousies and overall breakdown of discipline ensued. But Admiral Marty and Captain Ellen don’t mind a lot of chaos as long as their false gods are being appeased…
By Stephen
June 14, 2010 9:30 PM | Link to this
the days of gays hiding in the closet to appease straight people are OVER. Deal with it. NO one is going back in the closet and this WILL be repealed.
By I Serve
June 17, 2010 11:21 AM | Link to this
This is pathetic. If you are having car troubles, you dont ask a priest or a cook to check it out. You ask a mechanic. If gays want to serve now, they can, just cannot be overly open about it. How about ask the men and women who ACTUALLY serve if they want to repeal the dont ask dont tell? DDN, thank you for attempting to continue to drive your progressiveness and liberal thinking down our throats. When you need someone to write for you that has not taken leave of their senses, let me know. I’ll help you guys out.
By I Serve
June 17, 2010 11:22 AM | Link to this
This is pathetic. If you are having car troubles, you dont ask a priest or a cook to check it out. You ask a mechanic. If gays want to serve now, they can, just cannot be overly open about it. How about ask the men and women who ACTUALLY serve if they want to repeal the dont ask dont tell? DDN, thank you for attempting to continue to drive your progressiveness and liberal thinking down our throats. When you need someone to write for you that has not taken leave of their senses, let me know. I’ll help you guys out.
By jON
June 19, 2010 10:48 AM | Link to this
Will lipstick and Mascara plus other make-up be allowed so these feminine service personal will always look their Best when falling out for reveille, Getting ready for the Days work will be like sharing the bathroom with your sister, although You know your sister won’t be staring at your a-s and licking her lips. Instead of U.S. Army it will be Brokeback Army. All of the MRE’s will have a small tube of Vaseline included for some slip and slide fun.
By SH
June 20, 2010 10:19 AM | Link to this
MIlitary polls from 2006 and 2010 show that the military members themselves are split, with half opposing repeal and half not opposing or not caring. Additionally, hundreds of retired miitary generals have signed a statement calling on repeal. And the current joint chief of staff and commander in chief are asking for repeal. So you people who keep telling us to let the military speak to the issue, they have and they are. And the results are: alot support repeal, and alot do not. Its split, and it is still going to be repealed. And to the ignorance of “gays just cant be too open:” the will be just as open and honest about who they are as straight guys are. And dont flatter yourselves, no gay man will be looking at you, and if he is, you should be flattered. Deal with your own homophobia. Its no ones problem but your own.
By Deal
June 20, 2010 10:25 AM | Link to this
you homophobes would only be so lucky to have a gay man look at you. grow up and quit writing childish things in forums. NO gay man would likely even look at you. there are rules in the military and i dont there will be any “slip and slide fun” as you say. gay people are there to work just like anyone else. These are your brokeback military fantasies, maybe you should ask yourself why you are so obsessed with that idea and admit your same sex fantasies. There are places in Dayton area you can go for some same sex fun