In this ever-changing global society it is necessary that we ask ourselves certain questions. That which may once have appeared justifiable and correct may now prove to be discriminatory or unfair. Long before my generation these realizations have been made resulting in the end of institutions such as slavery and crusades such as the Women’s Rights Movement. Eventually these issues were brought to light by a group of people impassioned by doing what is right and protecting the values on which the American construct exists. Perhaps one of the biggest socio-political issues we are faced with is that of gay rights. This topic embodies different things for different people and exists in a multitude of capacities, but the most prevalent question in today’s debate, at least for now, is over the controversial "Don't ask, Don't tell" military policy.
The Service Members Legal Defense Networks website describes Don’t ask, Don’t Tell as a bill, “passed by Congress in 1993, DADT is a law mandating the discharge of openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual service members.” Immediately this statement is unsettling. The U.S. military is supposed to represent a noble and strong defense system responsible for the safety and protection of our country, and yet the establishment has for almost two decades implemented a policy that does not allow members of a specific background to serve. Seemingly this goes against the promise of our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- the very ideals that our military and government have, in other eras, worked tirelessly to preserve.
Why did this legislation enter the system of the U.S. military? According to an article by Gregory M. Herek the basis of the policy was to reduce discrimination of homosexuals by not requiring them to identify with or acknowledge their sexual orientation. It was a compromise resulting from the attempt by the Clinton administration to eliminate prejudicial practices in the military toward members of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community. Unfortunately, this “compromise” established a huge conundrum. In an effort to stifle discrimination, the legislation simply perpetuated biases and profiling against military members and in many instances actually made the situation worse. Herek states, “The policy has remained in effect since 1993, although the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and other organizations monitoring its implementation have repeatedly pointed out its failures. Discharges have actually increased under the policy, and harassment of gay and lesbian personnel appears to have intensified in many locales.” This evidence alone, suggests to us the failures and atrocities associated with such enactments.
The movement to end this policy has been heated and met with great opposition from both government officials and executive members of the military. However, this fall a monumental effort was made when on October 12, 2010 a Federal Judge by the name of Virginia Phillips ordered the U.S. Military to immediately stop enforcing Don’t ask, Don’t tell. The order marks the first occasion sense the start of the seventeen-year-old policy that realistically suggests it may soon be repealed.
However, this order is not concrete. It may be suggestive of an up coming heightened awareness of civil rights and integrity, but it does not yet fully represent the end of an era of discrimination and bias. Within days of Judge Phillips order republicans and advocates of Don’t ask, Don’t tell issued appeals across the nation, arguing that the policy was a critical component of the acceptance and discharge processes of the military and that there were not grounds to prove the unconstitutionality of DADT [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell].
In an attempt to handle the situation with more delicacy, Defense Secretary Robert gates established a network of pentagon appointed groups who would be given the responsibility of overseeing all discharges associated with the policy, so that each case would be examined more closely. The move in itself represents discrimination in a manner that can be viewed as a much more personal level of attack. Rather than all members of the military being forced to refrain from identifying with a sexual orientation, now those suspected of homosexuality can also be investigated under a much closer microscope by these teams of “overseers.”
This comes in the wake of yet another disappointing measure taken against Judge Phillips ruling, a federal appeals court passed orders that would put a freeze on her claim. Thus bringing the situation to a bit of stand still and leaving the legislation in a place of limbo that does not yet fortify the rights of openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual service men and women.
Where does this debate stand in terms of priority for President Obama? During the process of his presidential campaign he gained popularity among gay rights advocates and multiple organizations because he seemed to offer a much fresher perspective into the inequities between homosexuals and heterosexuals. He made it a point to argue that he would fight to end the Clinton administrations policy, despite his political loyalty to the Clintons and the great amount of influence that particular administration has had on his own policy.
Of course, President Obama is faced with a seemingly unending list of major problems both within the country and throughout the world. The National and Global economies have failed, the American people have already ceased to remember that he inherited the situation after a presumably unsuccessful eight-year presidency, and the morale of the American people has continued to be decimated. One might argue that the president simply set this debate aside in hopes of working out major issues first. Unfortunately this would reveal a major lapse in judgment on behalf of Mr. Obama. Human Rights are among the highest regarded ideals a President is expected to maintain, and by failing to take action against this legislation he appears to have a failed sense of priority.
Others may argue that the situation is much more complicated and that the President cannot afford to pass immediate legislation overruling DADT. In fact, Obama himself has stated with regards to ending the policy that, “It has to be done in a way that is orderly, because we are involved in a war right now."
It seems, however that at a time of war, and great patriotism our government would not find it so difficult to support anyone, despite sexual orientation who wished to selflessly serve, even possibly give their life, in order to defend our nation. This very situation represents the gray area in which the LGBT community exists in our country today, and this is only one domain in which this demographic has been blatantly discriminated against and left outside the areas of constitutional protection as a result of hatred, misunderstanding, and socio-political digression.
Perhaps it can be said that the American people, and even possibly our Government have began to open their eyes and see the unfair acts of what could be called, “ignorant policy.” We have reached a time of much greater awareness and the movement for a better America has begun. But this is not to say that the battle has been won, nor that the American people are finished raising their voices to the existing discrimination inflicted upon members of our Military in a time where every service member is a critical component to the continued defense and success of the American way of life. It is time that we revise what defines us as Americans and revert to the original ideals of equality and solidarity founded by the great people who created our nation. Only then, only when discrimination and hate in all aspects have been abolished from our great land, will we truly represent America, because after all, the only truly intolerable acts are those of intolerance.
*I will take the time to insert proper foot-notes and annotations later.
No comments:
Post a Comment