Why did they ask? We were told it was because of National Security. National Security? It was said that, if captured, that the information about being a homosexual could be used against a service member to reveal military secrets.
It seemed to me to be more like this zero-tolerance policy was the cause of this National Security flaw… that being a homosexual was a cause of being dishonorably discharged and therefore the reason someone would not want people to know.
It was a policy that only justified itself. It was text book employment discrimination, but with the government’s approval.
Everyone hailed DADT as a step in the right direction. Homosexuals had already been serving our country before this policy was in effect. But what did it change?
In reality, it made it harder to be a homosexual and serve. Before… you just had to lie and hide it. After… it was no longer a reason for discharge, but you could not talk about it. It was text book employment discrimination, but with the government’s approval.
Now, we see the day when everyone can serve our country. I may not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but they deserve the chance to serve our country. It define the fabric of our history, that even though we may disagree, we all deserve to be heard.
It bothers me that some of the “religious right” are embittered by the idea of homosexuals serving. I believe that they deserve that they are human beings too. I believe that they deserve to be treated as people. And I believe that we have the right to disagree.
I may disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. And they probably disagree with me. They deserve a chance to overcome employment discrimination.