The de facto repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

August 15, 2005

I’ve been talking about the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act,” which would undo the government’s experiment with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” for a while now, but as it turns out, the need for the change may be less obvious than I had assumed. In fact, with recruiting down and casualties high, the policy isn’t being enforced much anyway.

Consider Sgt. Robert Stout of Utica, Ohio — an Iraq war veteran and Purple Heart recipient — who went to Capitol Hill in July. A veritable war hero, Stout seems like the kind of constituent lawmakers would be anxious to meet, but neither of his two senators (Republicans George Voinovich and Mike Dewine) would speak with him. That’s a shame — if they had, they would have heard about someone who’d already been allowed to serve despite “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which in Stout’s case, the military simply chose to ignore.

Stout was in the Army for five years and served in Iraq as a combat engineer for about 10 months. In May 2004, he was patrolling an area about an hour southeast of Samarra when he was injured by a grenade blast.

“The only thing I remember is I heard a loud bang,” Stout said, “and it felt like somebody poured water all over my face.” The “water” was actually blood, and after two months of rehabilitation, Stout returned to Iraq with some shrapnel left in his body.

“A couple pieces are still in the arm,” Stout said. “Couple pieces in the neck, and I got a couple scrapes on my face and legs.” Stout says he was already sick of living a lie, and in April 2005, his wounds prompted him to out himself to The Associated Press. “The fact that I can fight, I can bleed, I can die just as good as every other straight man or woman in that military should not bar me from enlistment,” he said.

Even though his admission violated “don’t ask, don’t tell,” — he quite literally and publicly “told” — Stout was permitted to remain in the military until his normal discharge seven weeks later, as long as he signed a document.

“I would go ahead and sign a paper saying I would not engage in homosexual acts, make homosexual comments, or engage in homosexual marriage, and they would let me discharge naturally,” Stout said.

What a concept. A courageous and able-bodied soldier was permitted to serve his country in war, despite being gay, if he promised to behave himself. Can someone explain to me why this couldn’t work throughout the military?

It turns out all gays needed in order to serve their country in uniform was a war. Consider the trend of what the military calls “homosexual separations”:

1997 — 997
1998 — 1,145
1999 — 1,034
2000 — 1,212
2001 — 1,227
2002 — 885
2003 — 770
2004 — 653

What an amazing coincidence. The Pentagon was dismissing gay soldiers at an amazing rate in Bush’s first year in office, but after wars broke out in the Middle East, suddenly the rate dropped to all-time lows.

Discrimination, apparently, is only a luxury in peacetime.

CB,
Send this one to Falwell or Dobson & watch their heads explode. Bush not doing anything to keep the faggots out of the army?!? But he *promised*!!!

Haha, Chumps.

  • Served in the war *and* a Purple Heart recipient and neither of his Senators would speak with him??? WTF???

  • I’m with Andy. I know its tangential to the theme of the post, but still that tidbit is outrageous. God, Guns and Greed really does sum up the GOP philosophy.

  • “I would go ahead and sign a paper saying I would not engage in homosexual acts, make homosexual comments, or engage in homosexual marriage, and they would let me discharge naturally,” Stout said.

    Everything about the military’s nonsensical policy on homosexuals has revealed it to be based entirely on bigotry. If homosexuality depleted the effectiveness of the fighting force, then prosecutions and discharges would increase in a time of war, not increase. If sexual behavior affected morale than everyone would be prohibited from having sex, not just homosexuals.

  • Too bad that Senators Voinovich and Dewine were anxious about meeting with Stout. I would think any Republican would be eager to be seen with a genuine war hero.

  • why the fuck should he have to promise to “behave”? he’s a soldier, not a priest. i didn’t know celibacy was a requirement.

    your pal,
    blake

  • wouldn’t any relationships already be covered under fraternization rules?

    also i find the phrase “homosexual acts.” it seems they are carving out acts of sodomy when straights are involved.

  • I can see why they would want to have the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, but whether they like it or not, it is blatantly discriminatory. I’m shocked nobody has taken it to court yet.

  • he’s a soldier, not a priest.

    Just to clarify, I meant “behave” in the context of following orders, playing by the same rules as other soldiers, etc.

    The document Stout was asked to sign sounded a lot like a British policy called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Misbehave.” Gay soldiers can serve openly, but everyone in uniform, regardless of orientation, is expected to avoid inter-personal relationships that could interfere with professional responsibilities.

    Sounds a heck of a lot less discriminatory that what we have now.

  • I still get pissed, thirteen years later, when I remember how Clinton caved the instant Sam Nunn his Pentagon myrmidons winced over Clinton’s intention to fulfill his explicit campaign promise to integrate the US military. Some “Commander in Chief”. Truman took on a greater challenge (integrating racially) and stuck to his guns.

    • Comments are closed.