Update July 2011: I originally posted this diary in March 2010, right after the administration began to take the first concrete steps to eliminate Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the military. Given the news today that the White House, SECDEF, and CJCS have certified repeal, DADT is set to go the way of the Dodo on September 20, 2011. I felt the need to repost this diary because I think that DADT and DOMA are inexorably intertwined, and when the first falls, the momentum needs to be carried through to make sure the second isn't far behind. The battle is over, and victory is in sight, but the war needs to continue to be fought.
It has been a little under 2 months now since SecDef Gates and ADM Mullen went to Capitol Hill to signal the beginning of the Administration's fight to repeal Don't Ask, Don't tell in earnest. Predictably, the right marshaled its forces against the repeal of an unjust law, citing everything from faux outrage over the "terrorists'" feelings (claiming that it would "enrage" them and make them fight harder against us), to outlandish claims that military order would break down and barracks would be converted to bathhouses.
However, it is one of the less screechy, but no less irrelevant lines that I have heard that sums up the great fear of opponents of true equality. Spoken by (edit: now Speaker) John Boehner right after the State of the Union:
"In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?"
The thing of it is, a lot of folks may have missed the great implications in this throwaway line.
The fact that this policy could be changed in the middle of two wars is big. HUGE in fact. It is not just past actions that are important either, such as the oft-referenceds translators who were discharged for being gay. Instead, it is what the future holds that frightens the homophobes so much. Because if gay men and women are allow to be open and true to themselves, and fight, and die, and be decorated and draped in their nation's colors and honored at awards ceremonies, then the march towards tolerance, marriage equality and acceptance will be pushed forward so far that there will be no turning back.
This has been an idea of mine since a history class I took two semesters ago. My professor was a historian of the labor and civil rights movements. As we learned about the timelines of WWII and its influence on the Civil Rights Act in the 60s, he believed that two of the catalyzing events were the desegregation of the defense industry during WWII, and the African-Americans who were able to serve (albeit in a segregated manner) for the first time in a combat capacity. When I approached him after class and asked him what he thought of Truman's desegregation of the military in the late 50's, he admitted that he thought it was a watershed moment, but mostly a political move on Truman's part in an election year.
Having served in the military though (USMC enlisted in the late 90's and early 2000s), I offered him up a different perspective, and one which I think is relevant today vis-a-vis gay servicemembers. It was also one which he hadn't considered before, but which, after hearing my ideas, he believed had a lot of merit.
Say what you will about the military, but there are a few fundamental truths to consider. One of them is that rank is sacrosanct. If you are given an order by a superior in your chain of command, you do it. You may disagree with it, you may complain about it (and doing it tactfully is a high art among lower enlisted), but in the end, you do it. If you don't, you are in trouble. The second is that, at least among the lower ranks, promotions are meritocratic and will eventually come. The third is that, no matter what you may have been brought up to think, split-second, life threatening situations blurs biases. When asked what I though about the ubiquitous "sharing a foxhole" with an openly gay Marine, my response was, "Weather or not they have gay sex is secondary to whether or not they can shoot straight."
It is easy to be prejudiced out of ignorance because you've never actually met a member of the group you're supposed to hate. However, working side by side with them tends to blur the lines. When I was in the Corps, it really didn't matter how much sunscreen you needed, what you had between your legs, or who you went after when you were out on liberty. The primary thing was, "Does this person carry their own weight? Are they a good Marine?". If the answer was yes, then that became your primary feeling about the person in question.
The same thing happened in the 50's with African-Americans, and the same thing is happening with gays. Think of what integration did for the military back then:
Since bases were federal property, they had to be desegregated as well. No more separate chow halls, barracks, or workspaces. You were assigned to your units based on need, not on race. This forced people raised in areas with segregation to have to work side-by-side, or even take orders from those they were taught were inferior. Once people were mustered out, they would return home with these new experiences and (maybe) tolerance and acceptance, simply from having come in contact with something different. No longer could they easily, blindly accept segregation and racism as "the way things are"; they had to contrast that against the actual experiences they had in the service.
Support of servicemen and women was at an all time high, as it is today. Flush from victories in WWII, and with the Korean War occurring between 1950 and 1953, the goodwill towards those people fighting and dying in uniform was unconsciously given toward African-Americans too. The Korean War would see 2 Medal of Honor winners who were African-Americans, both posthumously. Given that no similar MoHs were awarded during WWII (several have been awarded retroactively since), two black men giving all for their nation and receiving the highest award possible registered in the collective consciousness.
I believe that this integration of African-Americans into the military and greater US culture eventually aided the Civil Rights Movement. Sure, I can't prove it, but I think that I can say without doubt, that when some white southerners saw the marches in Birmingham or Selma, they didn't just see a faceless black mass... some of them saw an African American soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine that fought beside them and maybe died for the ideals of America.
So what does this all have to do with DADT and Marriage Equality? Everything.
Yes, Mr. Boener, we ARE in two wars right now. And weather or not you want to believe it, there are quite a few GLBT Americans who have given up their freedoms, even their lives and limbs, to fight for their nation. And they do so while withholding who they are to their fellows, and living under a shadow of fear is they are ever ratted out. But I think you know this. And I think that once they are allowed to openly be who they are to their fellows and the American People, the house of cards that DOMA is built upon will start to come crashing down.
The American people might start to ask why gay and lesbian servicemembers, married in states where it is legal, are not afforded equal treatment. They may ask why their same-sex partners aren't allowed to visit them in the hospital, receive medical care and counseling by the government while they are deployed, or be unable to accept the flags draping the coffins of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice.
In short, the national consciousness will change. DADT isn't about equality for the sake of receiving a benefit or entitlement. DADT is about the equality to be able to make a sacrifice... sometimes even the ultimate sacrifice, for your nation. Its about the right to give more of yourself than you receive. In peacetime, the homophobes wouldn't have to worry about public opinion quite as much (of course, they'd fight DADT repeal then, too). However, since we are in a war, and since the public opinion of the warrior is so positive (even if the war is not), they are terrified of the ramifications. They are terrified that the notion of openly gay servicemembers giving their all for their country would, as Bill O'Reilly put it, "Humanize Homosexuals"