Joint Force Quarterly is going to publish an article calling for an end to the ban on gays in the military:
"After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly,'' writes Colonel Om Prakash, who is now working in the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. "Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.''
They think they can call the shots on policies like this, and, considering how almost every president and congresscritter lives in fear of being branded a DFH, they pretty much do. It's a big part of why their budget is so big.
So the fact that the Pentagon is at least partly getting behind a change (and it'll have to be a change since just repealing DADT would mean that the wholesale ban on LGB people will be put back in place) in policy is a good sign for LGB people in the military and those who'll have to join up eventually as the economy becomes less and less equal that they really don't have much of a choice.
The author, Om Prakash, focuses on the lives of LGB people in the military:
But the crux of Prakash's argument is that the military is now forcing thousands of soldiers to live a lie, directly undercutting the very fabric of their profession.
"The law also forces unusual personal compromises wholly inconsistent with a core military value - integrity,'' he writes. "Several homosexuals interviewed were in tears as they described the enormous personal compromise in integrity they had been making, and the pain felt in serving in an organization they wholly believed in, yet that did not accept them.''
He continues: "In an attempt to allow homosexual service members to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of 'equality for all,' places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas, and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve.''
What? The closet is a deception? Burying our heads in the sand about human sexuality and pretending like it's a moral choice that can be turned on and off like a light switch denies reality and is therefore dishonest?
Not coming out is literally a lie, but it's a justifiable one in many situations. And enlisted folks who need a paycheck and medical care don't lose any respect from me by not coming out, especially in this economy.
But they're losing respect for themselves when there's really no need. All this policy was ever about is communally reinforcing insecure semi-straight boys' masculinity so that they're secure enough to express their homoerotic urges, since it's not gay if everyone else doing it is straight. That and old ideas die hard, including old stereotypes about gay people (both gay men and lesbians) as sexual predators.
This is why Congress has power over the military, at least according to the now-quaint Constitution. Instead, even mainstream publications like the Boston Globe think that the military gets to decide who's allowed to join up or not:
The views do not necessarily reflect those of Pentagon leaders, but their appearance in a publication billed as the Joint Chiefs' "flagship'' security studies journal signals that the top brass now welcomes a debate in the military over repealing the 1993 law that requires gays to hide their sexual orientation, according to several longtime observers of the charged debate over gays in the military.
Well, la-di-da. They welcome a debate. Sorry, but it's been happening and it should happen whether they like it or not, because us
rubes civilians are paying their paychecks.