Tuesday, April 20, 2010


I don't support the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I feel that if open soldiers wish to serve, they should be able to, and they shouldn't have to hide their orientation. And why am I writing about this? A relatively new friend (who I met about a few weeks before Spring Break) went to the local recruiting station early last week to possibly enlist and she was talking with a recruitment officer who mentioned the policy of honesty and she said that she was a lesbian, so the officer more or less showed her the door. This past Friday, there was a protest in front of the station in support of her. And in today's campus paper, an article was published about the protest that ended with a quote from Representative Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) about the policy. The following is from the article.
However, there are those who maintain that DADT is an effective policy that should be upheld. At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting in February, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia stated that servicemen from the gay community have served, and will continue to serve, valiantly in the U.S. armed forces, but that military life is fundamentally different than civilian life and functions under a different set of rules.
"Examples include alcohol use, adultery, fraternization and body art," Chambliss said at the meeting. "If we change this rule of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, what are we going to do with these other issues?"
Okay, Representative. Yes, military members drink, might have affairs, pal around, and get tattoos. So do civilians. Yes, military members are under the threat of attacks from antagonizing forces. So are civilians ... but in a slightly different way. What I'm getting at is what problem does Representative Chambliss have? It's not like allowing soldiers to serve openly will gay-ify the armed forces!
Until tomorrow! Allons-y, Alonso!

No comments: