The original "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was a compromise, and there is wisdom in compromises. The fact remains that servicemembers do believe that having homosexuals in the service impacts their morale and their ability to fight. And for the military, it's not about "diversity" or "inclusiveness" or any of the rest of the P.C. B.S. that we in the civilian world care so deeply about. It's about the ability to fight and win, no matter where in the world and no matter the odds. That's why the people who are actually doing the fighting should have the biggest say in what happens. Should we be kicking out military translators serving in Washington D.C. because they're gay? That doesn't exactly seem like a productive use of resources. But at the same time, do we really want romantic attachments getting in the way of the operations of a nuclear submarine? That seems problematic at best. If what we're trying to do is enforce a one-size-fits-all solution, forget it.
That's why we shouldn't look for one. If we're going to get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," we should at least replace it with a policy that recognizes all sides of the issue. And better yet, we shouldn't let gays in the military become a political football in the first place. We should recognize that it's the soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen that have to deal with whatever policies we put in place. Have we ever thought to actually listen to what they have to say?
More from YourTango: Was Jesus Really Married? Christian Experts Sound In
Are you worried romance will get in the way of effective military strategy?