Judge Rules "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is Unconstitutional

While the media focused the world's attention on some hayseed Elmer Gantry wannabe and his Koran burning, US District Judge Virginia Phillips ruled Thursday that the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"policy on homosexuals serving is unconstitutional because it violates the First and Fifth Amendments. While there will be some complaining from some quarters, this decision will eventually be the basis for a saner policy. The Obama administration would be wise not to appeal.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a bastard policy born of Bill Clinton's unwillingness to confront the military and a military that has had a culture of homophobia for decades. What should have happened back in the 1990s was an executive order from Mr. Clinton allowing gays and lesbians to serve on an equal footing with straight citizens. The military would have complained, but it complained when Harry Truman integrated it in the 1940s. Mr. Clinton should simply have said," I am commander-in-chief, this is how it will be, and any officer unwilling to obey this order can resign." The fact that he didn't stemmed from his own avoidance of military service and a lack of respect for that in conservative circles both military and civilian.

As a result, the US has had a policy of pretending there are no individuals in the military attracted to the same sex. It creates a culture of deceit and undermines trust. In combat, trust among members of a unit is vital. Deceit will get people killed. One must acknowledge that on matters of homosexuality, America is more tolerant than it was in the 1990s, let alone the 1970s or 1950s. So policies that might have worked in the past may be inoperative now, and policies unthinkable a generation ago, fit today's military. Oddly under this policy, the US military would have discharged Alexander the Great, whose equal as a military leader America has yet to produce.

This journal takes a libertarian view of the whole matter. What consenting adults do in private is not of any concern to anyone else. Jesus of Nazareth summed it up in Matthew 7:3, "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Moreover, anyone who is prepared to put on a uniform and follow orders to kill and be killed should receive a bit of slack from those who stay home to drink beer and pontificate on the Internet.

Citing testimony from experts and former service members, Judge Phillips wrote, "All of these examples demonstrate that the act's restrictions on speech not only are broader than reasonably necessary to protect the government's substantial interests, but also actually serve to impede military readiness and unit cohesion rather than further these goals."

The matter can go through to the Supreme Court, but this journal would rather see Congress act so as to avoid the nonsense the country has seen over abortion. The House voted in May to repeal the policy. Perhaps now the Senate will thanks to the added pressure from the courts.

© Copyright 2010 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.

Kensington Review Home