Don't ask, don't tell

[[File:Cal Guard participates in the 2019 San Diego Gay Pride Parade (48293907882).jpg|thumb|right|165px|Army contingent in a 2019 Pride Parade]]
{{Uspolitics}}
{{homophobia}}
{{cquote|… [[gays]] in the military. Now, I dunno how y'all feel about it… here's how I feel about it: Anyone… DUMB ENOUGH to want to be in the military should be allowed in. End of fucking story. That should be the only requirement. I don't care how many push ups you can do, put on a helmet, go wait in that foxhole we'll tell you when we need you to kill somebody. You know I'm sick of hearing military guys saying "The esprit de corps will be affected, and we are such a [[moral]]"; Excuse me, aren't y'all hired fucking killers? Shut up! You are thugs and when we need you to go blow the fuck outta a nation of little brown people we'll let you know. Until then… Where do the fucking military get all these morals? "We are the military; is that a village of children and kids? Where's the napalm? (explosion) I don't want any gay people hanging around me when I'm killing women and kids. I just don't wanna see it."|||[[Bill Hicks]], "Gays in the Military" from the album ''Rant in E Minor''<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sF9YGpo2g4 Bill Hicks - Rant In E-Minor (1997)] ~32:30, ''YouTube''.</ref>}}
'''"Don't ask, don't tell"''' ('''DADT''') is shorthand for the former policy of allowing [[gay]]s and [[lesbian]]s to serve in the [[United States Armed Forces|United States military]] without fear of a [[witch hunt]] ("Don't ask") so long as they never admit to being gay or lesbian ("Don't tell").

U.S. President [[Bill Clinton]] had, in [[1992 U.S. Presidential Election|1992]], campaigned on an agenda of [[equal rights]] for gays. However, [[Congress]] passed, over his objections, an outright ban on gays in the military. Therefore, the best Clinton could do was to order a "compromise" in the form of a presidential directive that limited the enforcement of the ban by barring investigations into the [[sexuality]] of service members and also barring service people from discussing their [[sexual orientation]]. The official policy was "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, and don't harass."

As of September 20, 2011, the policy is no longer in effect, and gays are openly serving in the US military.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20108690.html CBS News: "Don't ask, don't tell" consigned to history] (20 September 2012) ''CBS News''.</ref> [[Transgender]] Americans were still completely barred from serving, however, under rules similar to those for gays and lesbians ''pre''-DADT up until 2021.<ref>[https://www.army.mil/article/247785/change_to_policy_allows_transgender_soldiers_to_serve_openly Change to policy allows transgender Soldiers to serve openly] by Devon Suits (June 24, 2021) ''U.S. Army''.</ref>

==Current status==
DADT was repealed by the [[Senate]] in 2010, during a lame-duck session of Congress. [[President Obama]] signed the repeal into law on December 22, 2010, and it went into full implementation nearly a year later in September of 2011.

A poll released after the repeal shows that repealing DADT did not have the ill effects on troop morale or any other military operations which had been predicted by its opponents, probably due to the fact that not having to witch hunt gays or worry about being discharged for being gay has allowed all members of the military to ''focus on their fucking job'' for once.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20121022080121/http://militarytimes.com/news/2012/03/military-times-2012-poll-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-has-less-impact-than-expected-031212w/ Survey: DADT repeal has less impact than expected] by Cid Standifer (Mar 12, 2012 7:35:37 EDT) ''Military Times'' (archived from October 22, 2012).</ref>

===2010 and the move for repeal===
Barack Obama had campaigned on ending DADT (among other things), but publicly did nothing about it his entire first year in office,<ref group=note>It was common for Obama and his administration to take issues off the front burner, then later get them done, keeping other issues in the media for everyone to froth over.</ref> The Secretary of Defense (a [[Republican]], no less!) and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs both met with Congress to advocate ending DADT entirely.<ref group=note>In fact, they had already issued regulations making it much harder to dismiss someone based on sexuality, removing the option of kicking out those who are "outed" by others.</ref>  Moreover, the top commander in the [[Middle East]] (Gen. David Petraeus) and the top commander in [[Iraq War|Iraq]] (Gen. Raymond Odierno) called it a non-issue, saying that no one in the military really cared if DADT is kept or not.<ref group=note>This isn't exactly true, as the Commandant of the Marine Corps was officially against repeal, but he seems to have been the only serving military person willing to say so, and after the repeal he went along without complaining.</ref>

[[Republicans]] in Congress had consistently pushed against the repeal, for fear that [[Gay agenda|teh gayz will soon corrupt all of our fighting men]] and we'll end up just like the [[France|French]] or something — it was a useful [[moral panic]] for getting re-elected in some districts.

===The 2004 Log Cabin suit===
The [[Log Cabin Republicans]] brought a suit challenging DADT in 2004, but the trial did not begin until July of 2010. Among the [[evidence]] they presented was information regarding the inconsistent application of the policy; some service members were out for years before being discharged, whereas others never came out but were exposed by third parties and immediately discharged. Discharges were also typically delayed until after gay service members returned from combat deployment, suggesting that the military had no real interest in actually preventing openly gay soldiers from being deployed. (If an openly gay soldier can hurt morale and unit cohesion, why not weed them out ''before'' deployment?)

The challenge was successful,<ref>[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/PhillipsDecision.pdf Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America and Robert M. Gates: Memorandum Opinion] Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E (09/09/10) ''United States District Court, Central District of California''.</ref> and on October 12, 2010, Judge Virginia Phillips ordered all enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell and related policies to cease immediately.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/12/judge.dont.ask.order/index.html?hpt=T2 Judge orders military to stop enforcing 'don't ask, don't tell'] by Adam Levine (October 12th, 2010) ''CNN''.</ref> The Department of Justice requested a stay and appealed the decision soon afterward.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20101015015934/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/10/doj-files-motion-requesting-st.html DOJ Files Motion Requesting Stay of DADT Injunction] by Chris Geidner (October 14, 2010 4:04 PM) ''Metro Weekly'' (archived from October 15, 2010).</ref> In the interim, enforcement of DADT was haphazard; the Department of Defense sent memos requiring the various branches of the armed forces to comply with Phillips' order,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20101022023855/http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/belatedly-pentagon-tells-services-not-to-enforce-dadt-1.121768 Belatedly, Pentagon tells services not to enforce DADT] by Kevin Baron (October 14, 2010) ''Stripes'' (archived from October 22, 2010).</ref> but recruitment offices continued to turn away gays, lesbians, and [[bisexual]]s, either unaware of the change or anticipating that a stay pending appeal would soon be granted.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/us/14cabin.html Unexpected Turns for Suit Over ‘Don’t Ask’ Rule] by Lizette Alvarez (Oct. 13, 2010) ''The New York Times''.</ref> It's also likely that they simply did not want to recruit openly gay future-service members who would have been kicked out in the event of DADT being kept.

==Rationale==
The theory was:
#Gays and lesbians risk losing their security clearance.
#Unscrupulous persons often attempt to blackmail gays and lesbians into revealing classified information rather than have their sexual orientation revealed to their commanding officer in a letter.
#If the commanding officer learns of their sexual orientation in a letter this would result in the loss of their security clearance, lest they continue to have access to classified information which they might reveal to a blackmailer.
#[[Begging the question|See #1]].
The origins of this rationale can be traced back to the 1950s [[red scare]] when [[Joseph McCarthy]] conflated homosexuality with [[communism]].<ref>[https://www.ozy.com/flashback/lavender-scare-a-look-back-at-lgbt-mccarthyism/6192 Lavender Scare: A Look Back at LGBT McCarthyism] by Lorena O'Neil (5 February 2014) ''OZY''.</ref>

==Circumstances of discharge==
There were three possible justifications for discharging a member of the armed forces under the policy:<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120504174618/https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/654 10 USC § 654 - Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces] ''Legal Information Institute, Cornell University'' (archived from May 4, 2012).</ref>
#"The member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts."
#"The member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect."
#"The member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex."

There were some exceptions to the first two; if the person in question can demonstrate that they were really straight, i.e. that any gay actions or statements were out-of-character or just jokes, that person can avoid discharge. There are no such exceptions for [[same-sex marriage]] or attempted same-sex marriage, despite the fact that unlike the first two, [[marriage]] doesn't have to do with sexual orientation.

==Repercussions of Don't ask, don't tell==
{{More sources}}
*After DADT came into existence, ''more'', not fewer, gays were discharged.  So what was this for again?
*Many service people with critical skills, such as translators, have been among those discharged.  
*Gay members who never ''told'', were "found out" (by personal letters, by personal web pages, or personal ads) and were pursued despite the "don't pursue" line.
*There were several formal reviews of DADT while it was in place. All concluded the DADT policy was (at the time) a failure on many fronts; all admitted there was a [[MIC|financial burden]] to the military to have such a policy, but none concluded that it should be removed as formal policy.
*Prior to Congress' actions in 2010, DADT had been upheld five times in Federal Courts. It never reached the [[US Supreme Court]], though it would have been unlikely for SCOTUS to overturn a military policy.
*The threat of outing someone became even more powerful than it already was for [[Rape|rapists]] in the military to [[cover up]] their crimes.

==Case studies from other countries==
{{cquote|You don't have to ''be'' straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to ''shoot'' straight.|||[[Barry Goldwater]]<ref>[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/barry_goldwater.html Brainy Quote: Barry Goldwater]</ref>}}

Gay activists and military experts showed that the [[conservative]] position was [[bullshit]] by studying the open homosexual service that already exists in other countries. Take, for instance, the [[United Kingdom]]'s military:
*Large-scale resignations from the UK armed forces when the ban on gays was lifted were widely expected in some quarters — but in practice, they did not materialize. 
*At least one British army brigadier publicly resigned in protest, citing "strongly held moral and military convictions" but most observers were surprised at how smoothly the new law — which was forced on the UK government by the European Court of Human Rights — was implemented.<ref>"There was this expectation that there would be problems, but it just didn't happen. People just got on with their work" — Dave Small, ex-Royal Navy [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8493888.stm Gays in the military: The UK and US compared] (2 February 2010) ''BBC''.</ref>

A similar case occurred with another favorite and battle-hardened US ally, [[Israel]]. The [[IDF]] removed all restrictions in 1993 and never looked back.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110615053452/http://www.palmcenter.org/node/554 Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Forces: Did Lifting the Gay Ban Undermine Military Performance?] by Aaron Belkin & Melissa Levitt (June 1, 2004) ''Palm Center'' (archived from June 15, 2011).</ref><ref>[http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362505,00.html Follow Israel's example on gays in the military, US study says] by Itamar Eichner (02.08.07 , 11:12) ''Ynet News''. "It's a non-issue… You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one and be gay at the same time." — ex-IDF officer and Israeli Consul David Saranga </ref>

Prior to the US joining this list, the following [[NATO]] and EU nations have either always allowed LGBT persons to serve openly or allowed it in recent times:
{{collist|2|
*[[Belgium]]
*[[Canada]]
*[[Denmark]]
*[[France]]
*[[Germany]]
*[[republic of Ireland|Ireland]]
*[[Lithuania]]
*{{wpl|Luxembourg}}
*The [[Netherlands]]
*[[Norway]]
*[[Spain]]
}}

==See also==
*[[Gay rights]]
*[[Homophobia]]

==External links==
*[http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/17000/top-ten-west-point-cadet-resigns-over-dadt-unwilling-to-compromise-her-integrity West Point resignation]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Government incompetence]]
[[Category:Conservative deceit]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Homophobia]]
[[Category:Articles needing updates]]
[[Category: United States politics]]

Categories: Government incompetence, Conservative deceit, Homosexuality, Homophobia, Articles needing updates,  United States politics