[news] don't ask, don't tell, don't matter.

Before you can talk about Don't Ask/Don't Tell, you first have to acknowledge that it's built on the idea that gays shouldn't be in the military at all. From digging around on the internet, I've noticed that there are two main justifications for keeping gays out.

(1) Proclivity. Sodomy is against the rules and gays are more likely to commit sodomy.

(2) Morale. Gay people make straight people nervous, which is bad for morale, and thereby makes the military weaker.

Which brings us to the latest news from the Don't Ask/Don't Tell front. Apparently you can get kicked out for being gay, but only if you're NOT on active duty. According to "FORSCOM Mobilization & Deployment Planning System: Volume III Reserve Component Unit Commander's Handbook," a title that says it all, if a discharge is requested for a gay soldier after his unit is put on active duty, he still has to go to war--they just deal with the gay thing when they get back.

If they get back.

Now, this doesn't speak much to the proclivity rationale, but it says a whole lot about the morale issue. If gay people make the military weaker by their mere open and notorious presence (legal jargon!), you'd think the military would keep them as far from the battle field as possible. Instead, we send them to war anyway.

So, what's going on here? The military says it has a third interest: not letting people fake their way out of service. Apparently they're worried about situations similar to M*A*S*H's Klinger, where soldiers will claim to be gay in order to be sent home (see Enabling Statute at (e); but see Catch-22 for the proposition that anyone sane enough to want to go home is not insane enough to be discharged). Therefore, don't immediately discharge gay people because it will encourage the less honorable to fake gay.

Some commentators have said that it is "in clear violation of the law" to make a gay soldier go into active duty, but I can't see anything in the enabling statute that I would call "clear." In fact, the Enabling Statute says, "A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made...." (Enabling Statute at (b), emphasis totally added). Considering deference to the executive branch, etc., I can't imagine any court saying that SecDef can't postpone the inquiry until after the tour is over.

The reason, I think, people want to call this "in clear violation of the law" is because it feels horribly unfair--and the law is supposed to be, on some basic level, fair. And maybe this part of the law is fair: making a soldier who signed up for duty serve out that duty does not offend the sensibilities. What feels unfair is shamefully discharging her, after she's risked her life willingly for her country, when she returns home.

If you want to argue policy, start right there.

(link to washington blade article)
(link to advocate article)

(link to FORSCOM Regulation 500-3-3 pdf)
(link to enabling statute)