This essay argues for lifting the ban on openly gay service in the U.S. military, presenting evidence from military research, allied nations' experiences, and troop surveys. The author contends that the policy wastes resources, eliminates mission-critical personnel, and contradicts decades of research showing no link between sexual orientation and military performance. Drawing parallels to the integration of African Americans and women, the essay addresses cohesion concerns, documents support from military leadership, and calls for executive or legislative action to end the policy.
It is astonishing to consider how much opposition surrounds the lifting of the ban on gays in the military. Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar, and they will continue to serve long after the present day. Yet while the country's economy struggles, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade pursuing and dismissing gay service members from the armed forces. This expenditure represents a profound misallocation of resources during a time of fiscal constraint.
The parallels between current efforts to end discrimination against gays and the historical fight for racial integration of the armed forces are striking. In 1948, when President Truman ordered the desegregation of the military, resistance from service commanders was intense and widespread. Military leaders at that time argued that integration would undermine unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. Those arguments were wrong then, just as similar arguments are wrong now. It has been 17 years since the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law took effect in 1993, prohibiting military personnel from openly revealing their sexual orientation. The persistence of this policy into the 21st century stands as a monument to institutional resistance to change.
The decision to maintain the ban is fundamentally one of leadership. As with the integration of African Americans and women into the military, decisions are easier to make in hindsight. However, leadership requires making the right choice even without that advantage. The country's military and culture are unique in the world, and it is an astonishing statement of doubt in American troops to suggest they are incapable of doing what 24 other nations' militaries have accomplished successfully. The U.S. military is a professional, disciplined fighting force. To assert that a diverse military would lack order and discipline is, as Rep. Patrick Murphy, an Iraq War veteran, has stated, "an insult to him and the entire U.S. military."
The empirical case for repeal is overwhelming. Since 1957, when the U.S. military began conducting its own studies on gays in the military, every research effort has concluded that openly gay service is workable and poses no threat to military effectiveness. No military study or independent research has ever produced evidence linking sexual orientation to impairment of military performance. This consistent body of research spans more than five decades and represents the most thorough examination of the question available.
International evidence is equally compelling. Twenty-four allied nations permit openly gay service members, including Britain, whose combat-tested soldiers and sailors serve shoulder to shoulder with U.S. forces in shared operations. These militaries have not experienced the catastrophic loss of unit cohesion or combat effectiveness that opponents of repeal predict. Rather, these nations have successfully integrated openly gay personnel into their armed forces while maintaining operational readiness and morale.
Closer to home, the evidence contradicts the primary assumption underlying the gay ban: that openly gay service could never work. A majority of U.S. troops already know of, or suspect, gay personnel in their units. These service members are already serving, often openly, without causing the predicted problems. A poll of troops released on November 30th found that more than two-thirds said they would not object to gays and lesbians serving openly. Additionally, three-quarters of troops are "personally comfortable" with gays and lesbians, and many regard "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as "a joke." This widespread acceptance among the force itself undermines the cohesion argument at its foundation.
Support for repeal extends beyond junior enlisted personnel to senior military leadership. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen have stated the law should be repealed. Retired military officers, including General John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now oppose the ban they once supported. These officers recognize the ban as a threat to military readiness. According to consistent polling, four-fifths of the American public favors repeal, including majorities of Republicans, conservatives, and even churchgoers.
"Military discrimination standards and impact on national security"
"Historical precedent and calls for executive or legislative action"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.