The failure of last week’s United States Senate vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” (DADT) deserves a bit of context in the discussion of the larger picture of trends in American law and culture today.
There is little to no candid, objective ventilation of the issues involved in the discussion of sexuality in the military. Just as harm results from that lack of candid review of harmful sexual conduct within a family, so harm will result from the lack of candid review of harmful conduct within the military. The implications for this deception in the sexual conduct discussion have created misperceptions that do not foster strength of character for individuals, families, military units, or societies.
This deception is based largely on a debate that has focused on sexual identity – a complex and often nebulous concept – when the military is largely looking to govern sexual conduct. In fact, DADT is a compromise position of policy issued by the Clinton administration that failed in its attempts to repeal an underlying law that says:
The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts could create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. See 10 U.S.C. 654(a)(15).
This underlying law subsists even in the face of a DADT repeal.
This section of the U.S. Code is designed to protect vulnerable servicemen and women from conduct detrimental to military order and readiness. A level of deception that hides rather than confronts the issue honestly and objectively (without denigration by or of either side of the debate) is unhelpful at best, and potentially very dangerous.
Conduct in the military matters. Jeremy Dys of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia writes, “It is why many, if not most, of those discharged under DADT were so dismissed because they were men attempting to have unwanted sex with other men, or female soldiers likewise with soldiers of their gender. The statistics bear this out. Analysis of a FY 2009 study found that, of all the sexual assaults in the military, 8.2% of them were same-sex in nature. Comparing that to the general, civilian population, we discover that homosexuals in the military are three times more likely to commit sexual assaults relative to their population. And, it should be noted, that most of these assaults were men fondling or attempting oral sex on other men while the victim slept or was intoxicated. Thus, at the outset, we must keep in mind that many, though not all, of the discharges under DADT came about because sexual conduct was disciplined.” You can read his entire article here: http://engagefamilyminute.com/?p=3603.
Infractions of 10 U.S.C. 654(a)(15) represent an extremely small portion of military dismissals. According to the Department of Defense, in 2009 only 0.37% of military discharges were because of homosexual behavior. Other dismissals, according to the Center for Military Readiness, during that same time were for other conduct detrimental to the military including 90,302 discharges because of drug use, 55,790 dismissals for failure to meet weight standards, and 39,454 soldiers received discharge papers because they were pregnant. The United States military is a voluntary force, which understandably, has high standards to insure readiness and effectiveness.
Just as inappropriate sexual conduct, both heterosexual and homosexual, is damaging to a strong militia, so inappropriate sexual conduct within a family is devastatingly harmful as well. Sexual conduct matters. It matters to vulnerable individuals within a family who are harmed by it, and that is why the law regulates it. When such harmful conduct is allowed, even endorsed, the family is weakened dramatically. Families based on mutual respect and protection are important to a society that desires to foster strong families. In the same way, a military force based on mutual respect and protection are important to a society that desires to foster national security.
Deception cannot lend to strength. The debate over DADT has been one led by deception. Just as harm results from a lack of candid review of harmful sexual conduct within a family, so harm will result from the lack of candid review of harmful conduct within the military. The implications for this deception cannot foster strength of character for individuals, families, military units, or societies. These are trends in American law and culture that deserve candor and honesty – conduct really does matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment