Dont Ask, Dont Tell Policy - Essay Example

? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy Don’t ask, don’t tell Policy Serving honorably in the military is an incredible achievement that one would boost of in the society. However, social issues, which affect the normal life of a civilian, have similar effects to military service. In this sense, sexuality is a critical issue that influenced the relationship and the demanded respect in the military. In response, the US government introduced the policy that would define sexual relationship in the military. The don’t ask, don’t tell policy, enacted in 21 December 1993, prohibited the military officers from projecting discriminatory attitudes against any suspected service member, while barring open homosexual activities in the military (Defense Department, 2012). In essence, the provision of the policy gave homosexuals the opportunity to practice their activities silently while serving in the military. In addition, it promoted the discipline in the military because of the protection it gave to military personnel’s identity. This paper will analyze the intentions of the policy, it influence and the views of the society with respect to the policy. The don’t tell, don’t ask policy was originally intended to allow homosexuals to serve in the military, while promote the discipline of the military personnel with respect to their sexual life. As stated by provisions of the policy, military officers must endeavor to uphold high discipline. Largely, the fabric of military activities depends on the discipline of the service members. While discipline is a requisite, social needs of the officers have similar weight. Conversely, the provisions in the American law did not provide for same sex marriage. It was argued that open activities of the homosexuals serving in the military would not only contravene the law, but also paint the military on the wrong. The religious objection and moral perception to homosexual activities are some of the consideration that influenced the creation of the policy. Ideally, with the laws barring open homosexual activities, military wing had to be subject to the same law. Although the policy did not intend to curtail the military life of homosexuals, it created conditions that promoted which hunting in the military. It is arguable that some military officers could not keep silent about their sexual orientation. Since the inception of the policy, more than 14500 military personnel have faced the axe of the policy (Johnson, 2011). Another unintended intention of the policy is the provision of spying and relaying information about sexual orientation of members. WKU public radio (2012), interview with former Marine, Denny Meyer reveals the hectic life promoted by the policy. The interview quotes Meyer arguing that the policy created an atmosphere for serving in fear. The homosexuals did not have the free opportunity to make their intent known. Further, any clue about bisexual activities would call for grueling and interrogation. The end of the exercise would be discharge from the service, Meyer recalled. While it apparent that the policy intended to provide an opportunity for the homosexual to serve in the military, it curtailed their civil liberty. The court battle against the policy illustrates the unintended impacts of the policy, the court case Department of Air Force v Witt, for example, indicated the extent to which the policy deprived the military officers the equal protection right. In most cases, the policy would gruel the military personnel, absolving the rights to equal protection. The discipline demanded in the military and the law appeared to undermine the civil liberty of the service members. The proposed changes on the don’t ask, don’t tell policy were an incredible attempt towards promoting and respecting, service members equal rights. In the research conducted, prior to the changes on the policy, it was evident that the presence of gay or lesbian in Warfield did not diffuse the capability of the unit. Further, the research by RAND indicated that open service to homosexuals was a stereotypic misconception of the religious persons and moralists against the activities of the homosexuals. Ideally, the law that prohibited the open activities of the homosexuals no longer applies in the modern society. Another misconception of the open homosexual activities in the military was that it would promote promiscuity, unwelcome, and harassment within units, erosion of conduct code, privacy invasion, and morality of the service (Johnson, 2011). Sexual orientation in the modern world is not an invasion of privacy as indicated by the proponent of the policy. I believe that providing information about ones sexual orientation does not predispose an individual into acting without the due conducts stipulated in the force. In the court challenges about dismissal of the service members, it emerged that the policy promoted selective justice. Activists and believers in social liberty have projected a sharp contrast between the equal rights and homosexual’s rights as provided in the policy. If the society has to continue allowing the policy, then it would be contrasting the gains of equal rights. Since the contrast exists between the equal rights law and the don’t ask, don’t tell policy, it is susceptible to attack by civil lobby groups. In the case, Log Cabin Republican v United States of America, for example, illustrated the violation perpetrated by the act and the susceptibility of the act to attacks by both discharged military service members and lobby groups (Defense Department, 2012). It is argued that military code should not be subject to any activity that taints or erode its observance. However, a sexual orientation does not define individual’s ability to adhere to the service codes. I believe that the proposed changes to the policy would alleviate the burden of hiding ones identity in the service. Since talking openly about individual sexual orientation is not strange to the society, it is arguable the proposed changes will have limited effects to the service members. It is apparent, that many service members are aware about the existence of the homosexuals’ activities in the society. Moreover, the law provides protection for homosexuals as much as it does to the heterosexuals. This absolves the feared differences that may eminent in the service units concerning the sexual orientation of an individual. I believe the new proposal would reduce the number of cases of dismissal concerning individual sexual identity. Dismissal of service members should not be selective because the society stands to protect rights of its people. In conclusion, the proposed changes to the don’t ask, don’t tell policy are critical in promoting equal rights in the society. With no law barring an individual from belonging to a given sexual orientation, adhering to the present policy code would create more court battle and unfair treatment to military service members. While the proposed changes are expected influence the current service trend, the service members would soon adjust to the policy demands. References Defense Department (2012). End of Don't Ask, Don't Tell: The Impact in Studies and Personal; Essays by Service Members and Veterans. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Johnson, C. J. (2011). Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of Don't Ask, Ton's Tell. New York: DIANE Publishing. WKU Public Radio. (2012). Serving In Silence, Before 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. Retrieved on 23 June 2012 from http://wkyufm.org/post/serving-silence-dont-ask-dont-tell Read More