don't ask, don't tell, don't serve.

I have watched in relative horror as the best soldier I can imagine, is not serving in the military as we speak. She is physically unrivaled by her peer group (can benchpress her body weight, do weighted pull-ups which exceed her body weight, and run marathon-long distances), has no physical restraints, is college educated, can speak numerous languages (one of them, arabic), and is trained in military protocol from early expectation that she would serve. Unfortunately, she cannot - you see, she is gay.

Because of her language skills, this gay woman can take a job for an American contracted company to be in the middle east, making over six figures...when she was willing to do the job at a soldier's salary.

I'm not sure when America will understand that its best and brightest are excluded, while we are allowing those who are barely scraping by to get through - all because of who they come home to.

I was reading in a book the other day, regarding deception, about a gay man in the marine corps who served during Vietnam. He wrote letters to his partner everyday, but addressed them to his sister (who would give the letters to his partner), so that the guys wouldn't question it. He lived a decorated military life, and an absolutely secretive and wrenching personal pain.

At a time when we have seen years of evidence that gay and lesbian individuals have served honorably and contributed to our military might in the past, how can we deny them open service? They have stood side by side with their heterosexual counterparts, risking their lives, and not detracting from the mission. How silly to think that sexual preference would impair performance - if so, we would not allow women in the military at all - lest they seduce or be seduced by their opposite-sexed counterparts. We know better. We know that heterosexual men and women can and do serve in the military without their amorous inclinations interfering with their military duties....why would it be less for a homosexual recruit?

The notion seems to be that either we truly believe that same-sex people cannot control themselves (which clearly, we do not believe if we allow them to serve now...), or we believe that the knowledge of their sexuality will somehow infect or distract others (which we do not currently see with heterosexual soldiers). It is legislated bigotry pure and simple. There is no justification that I can think of that supports this policy. There is no scientific evidence which supports the assertions made.

When "don't ask, don't tell" came into fruition, it was a good policy. Rather than not allowing gay/lesbian individuals to serve in the military at all, a policy was created that would allow them to serve as long as they did not "tell," or were not open about their sexual preferences. We have found in the years since its creation, that it was a flawed policy - creating closets when it should have been opening doors. Suspected "homosexuals" are often passed over for promotions, harassed by their peers, and are not afforded the same opportunities as their heterosexual counterparts for benefits (for a partner/same-sex spouse), etc. Would we honestly ever expect our heterosexual counterparts to never discuss the opposite-sex, their partners, or indicate a new love interest to their close comrads? We do allow wedding bands, and this is perhaps one of the biggest "tells" of all. Maybe we should strip heterosexual military recruits of their wedding bands, for they disclose their sexuality - whether they have married a man, or a woman.

We are not asexual creatures, and the military does not ask us to be. "Fleet week" and other such events are known to be times of rampant carousing that is not restricted on moral grounds. Truth is, when I heard the general speak about rejecting homosexual soldiers based on "moral grounds," it just reminded me again of the hypocrisy running rampant in the church and this country. What of cadets cursing, premarital sex, objectifying women, the content of chants on the marches, taking God's name in vain, drunkenness, and a thousand other "sins" we could name? These are not equally punished by dismissal.

Picking and choosing which acts you consider "moral" and which you do not, hardly constitutes the grounds for the creation of solid national policy. It is an attempt at the appearance of morality, a poorly thought-out inconsistent ethos without rational or scientific grounds.

It is a wonder to me that gay/lesbian soldiers would want to serve at all, given the fact that they risk their life for a country that does not even acknowledge them, their families, or their relationships. How many heterosexuals would do the same?

-movement.