Motion: This house is in favor of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT)Policy
Purpose and Specifics: "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL, Don't Pursue" refers to the policy, begun in 1993, regarding lesbians and gay men in the U.S. military. Service personnel may be discharged for homosexual conduct but not simply for being gay. Therefore, military commanders do not ask military personnel about their sexual orientations or begin an investigation except upon the receipt of "credible information" of homosexual conduct. If a person acknowledges his or her homosexuality publicly, military commanders presume that he or she intends to engage in homosexual conduct. The policy was a compromise between President Bill Clinton, who sought to repeal the military's ban on gay personnel, and the opponents of that repeal in Congress and among the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Professor Charles Moskos of Northwestern University developed the policy's framework, and Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia brokered the compromise. According to those monitoring its implementation, the policy has failed to meet Clinton's goals of decreasing discharges for homosexuality and reducing harassment of lesbian and gay military personnel.
On May 27, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Murphy amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 on a 234-194 vote that would repeal the relevant sections of the law 60 days after a study by the U.S. Department of Defense is completed and the U.S. Defense Secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the U.S. President certify that repeal would not harm military effectiveness. On the same day the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee advanced the identical measure in a 16-12 vote to be included in the Defense Authorization Act. The amended defense bill passed the U.S. House on May 28, 2010.
September 20, 2010. Senate voted 56-43 vote, four short of the 60 votes needed to repeal the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.
Successful court challenge
On September 9, 2010, a federal district judge declared the DADT policy to be unconstitutional in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America. This decision was handed down by Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
On October 12, 2010, Federal Judge Virginia Phillips granted a worldwide, immediate injunction prohibiting the Department of Defense from enforcing or complying with the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy, and ordered the military to suspend and discontinue any investigation or discharge, separation, or other proceeding that have been commenced under the policy. The Department of Justice responded with an appeal and a request for a stay of the ruling, a request which was denied by Phillips but granted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 20.
On October 12, 2010, Federal Judge Virginia Phillips granted a worldwide, immediate injunction prohibiting the Department of Defense from enforcing or complying with the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy, and ordered the military to suspend and discontinue any investigation or discharge, separation, or other proceeding that have been commenced under the policy. The Department of Justice responded with an appeal and a request for a stay of the ruling, a request which was denied by Phillips but granted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 20.
Example: On October 19, 2010, Military recruiters were told they can accept openly gay applicants. On October 20, 2010, Lt. Daniel Choi, an openly gay man who had previously been honorably discharged under DADT, re-enlisted in the US Army. On October 20, 2010, A federal appeals court in California granted a temporary stay reversing a worldwide injunction against enforcement of the US military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy maintaining the DADT policy.
On November 1, 2010, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Virginia Phillips' injunction.
Military personnel opinion
A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 26% were in favor of gays serving in the military, 37% were opposed, while 37% expressed no preference or were unsure. Of the respondents who had experience with gays in their unit, 6% said their presence had a positive impact on their personal morale, 66% said no impact, and 28% said negative impact. More generally, 73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel.
Other Countries:
The militaries of the world have a variety of responses to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) individuals. Most Western military forces have now removed policies excluding non-heterosexual individuals (with strict policies on sexual harassment). Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, three (Britain, France, and Russia) permit gay people to serve openly and two (China and the United States) do not. The situation in the United States is complex: the current policy of discharging openly gay troops and refusal of openly gay recruits is currently under judicial review.
Countries that don’t allow homosexuals from serving in the military
Cuba, People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Jamaica, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, South Korea, Syria, Turkey, Venezuela, Yemen.
Cuba, People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Jamaica, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, South Korea, Syria, Turkey, Venezuela, Yemen.
Pros:
1. Do discriminate against sexuality: Military does take away some basic rights, but does not discriminate on race, gender (in most cases), ethnicity, etc. so they should not discriminate on sexuality.
o Instead of protecting gay soldiers from hate crimes and discrimination, DADT simply protects the homophobic tendencies and easily-offended sensibilities of straight men.
o Kicking qualified people out of the military based on outdated moral issues.
2. This act forces a homosexual to act heterosexual to join the army. This makes homosexuals give up who they are and lie about who they are. Where is the integrity in that?
3. Critical skill shortages such as Arabic linguists, fighter pilots and doctors have been discharged solely because they were gay at a time when we need them most while fighting two wars.
o The Service members Legal Defense Network reports that since 1993 more than 13,000 gay and lesbian troops have been fired.
4. When one signs up for the military, they sign away their rights, and people choose to do this, including the right to openly state that one is bisexual, mainly for the benefit of the whole army.
o Military takes away the right to freedom of speech, assembly, right to break a contract (like go home and quit), right to freedom of choice, right to use the US Judicial System, right to privacy, etc. How is this any different?
Cons:
1. Cohesion in the military: Military needs soldiers to trust their comrades so they can be effective.
o Needs Unity in the military especiall in the time of WAR. They would not be saying that the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people cannot serve in the army; the rest of the army does not want to know about it because they feel uncomfortable.
2. Discomfort of the Soldiers: They also point to the discomfort that heterosexual troops would feel living and bathing in close quarters with gays.
o It has been said by those who oppose the repeal that the issue is not about “liking” gay people, it is about doing what’s best for the armed forces.
3. Repeal will undermine morale and detract from combat training
No comments:
Post a Comment