Don't Ask; Don't Tell and The Ban on Homosexuals in the Military

The late Les Aspin

Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, often shortened to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) is one of the most confusing and contentious regulations defining the ban on homosexuals in the military.

Today’s underlying basis for the ban on homosexuals was outlined in 1982. Later, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin in 1993, during the Clinton administration, confirmed and repeated earlier findings that,

homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

The Department of Defense Directive, 1332.14, 28 January 1982, said,

The presence of such [homosexual] members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the Military Services; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.

The difference between the homosexual ban cited in 1982 and in 1993 is that the current policy restricts asking recruits or active duty service members about their sexual preferences.

The DADT regulations are enforceable, but they are not Federal law.

Clinton’s DADT policy is a set of campaign-promised regulations that confuse the meaning of the exclusion law. And it causes more problems that it attempts to solve.

Hilary Rodham Clinton, then-President Al Gore and President Clinton have admitted that DADT was a failure.

The DADT regulations should be repealed.

The homosexual exclusion law should remain.

Was this helpful? Do comment.

Consider a free eMail subscription or RSS for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Your Business Blogger is a former Army Captain in combat arms and is proud to serve as the Vice President for the Center for Military Readiness.

Stanford has links.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/us/14gay.html?_r=2&hp&ex=1158206400&en=c51f3ff0f2068574&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

From PUBLIC LAW 103-160 – NOV. 30, 1993

Subtitle G – Other Matters

SEC. 571. POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED

FORCES.

(a) CODIFICATION. – (1) Chapter 37 of title 10, United States

Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

“Sec. 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

“(a) FINDINGS. – Congress makes the following findings:

“(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United

States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise

and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make

rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval

f o r c e s .

“(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed

forces.

“(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article

I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the

discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and

conditions of service in the armed forces.

“(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare

for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

“(5) The conduct of military operations requires members

of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including

the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common

defense.

“(6) Success in combat requires military units that are

characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and

unit cohesion.

“(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability

is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual

service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military

unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness

of the individual unit members.

“(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian

life in that