Obama, Congress to Overturn Military's DADT

[sarge87]

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama said Wednesday night he will work with Congress and the military to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars gays and lesbians from openly serving in the armed forces.

 

Obama made the remark in his first State of the Union speech during a short litany of civil rights issues, which included his successful hate crimes bill, a move to "crack down on equal-pay laws" and improvement of the immigration system.

 

"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it," he said.

 

"We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate," he said.

 

Don't ask, don't tell

 

In 1992, President Clinton suspended the military's policy that barred gay, lesbian and bisexual people from serving.

 

Congress passed "don't ask, don't tell" in 1993.

 

The law says GLB members are allowed to serve unless they:

 

-- Make a statement of their sexuality , publicly or even to family and friends (and are later turned in)

-- Attempt to marry a person of the same sex

-- Get caught engaging in a homosexual act

 

In 2005, a bill was introduced in the House to repeal DADT. The bill did not make it out of committee.

 

 

In 2008, more than 100 retired generals and admirals called for a DADT repeal. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has called for a review of the policy.

 

During the 2008 presidential election, then-candidate Barack Obama promised to end DADT.

 

 

Military statistics indicate that from 1997 to 2008, more than 10,500 service members have been discharged under the policy.

 

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization providing legal help, says more than 13,000 GLB members have been discharged since 1994. "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."

 

Former Navy pilot Sen. John McCain said "it would be a mistake" to repeal the 1993 law that bars gay men and lesbians from revealing their sexual orientation, and prevents the military from asking about it.

 

"This successful policy has been in effect for over 15 years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels," McCain said. "We have the best-trained, best-equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy."

 

But in a message to Pentagon leadership, Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it's time to repeal the law.

 

"As a nation built on the principal of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger more cohesive military," said Shalikashvili. His letter was sent to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, who supports repealing the policy.

 

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization that works with those affected by the "don't ask, don't tell" law, praised Obama's call for repeal.

 

"We very much need a sense of urgency to get this done in 2010," the group said. "We call on the president to repeal the archaic 1993 law in his defense budget currently being drafted, that is probably the only and best moving bill where DADT can be killed this year. ... The American public, including conservatives, is overwhelmingly with the commander in chief on this one."

 

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, flatly disagreed with the idea of ending it.

 

"When it comes to 'don't ask don't tell,' frankly, I think it's worked very well. And we just ought to leave it alone," he said to reporters Wednesday morning.

 

The policy prohibits openly gay men and women from serving in the U.S. armed forces.

 

The policy bans military recruiters or authorities from asking about an individual's sexual orientation but also prohibits a service member from revealing that he or she is gay.

 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, supports ending the practice but wants to go about it carefully.

 

Levin said he did not have any details about what the president would say.

 

"If we do this in a way which isn't sensitive ... we could have exactly the opposite effect of what I hope will be the case -- which is to change the policy," he said Monday.

 

Levin said the committee plans to hold hearings on the issue in early February, although the hearing may be with outside experts -- delaying a hearing with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, that had originally been promised, CNN was told by a congressional source.

 

Obama campaigned on the promise that he would repeal the law in his first year of office.

 

Speaking to the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, in October, Obama admitted that "our progress may be taking longer than we like," but he insisted his administration was still on track to overturn the policy.

 

"Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach," he said.

 

Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell deflected repeated questions about the policy at Wednesday's Pentagon briefing, directing reporters to take their questions to the White House.

 

"We continue to work on this problem," said Morrell. "But I'm not going to get into it with more specificity than that."

I guess I don't care one way or another, but I think with two wars going on, to radically overhaul the military at this time may not be the right decision. The decision from my standpoint should be left up to the military itself, and not politicians who are only out to score political points with a constituency at home.

 

Will this open up litigation against superiors by gays, who perceive they may not have received a promotion due to their sexual orientation?

 

Will there be huge logistics problem when serving in close quarters situations? (Naval vessels, Living quarters, showers, ect...)

 

 

I would like some input by military and civilians alike, but keep it respectful whether for or against.

[carlfense]

I think ending DADT has been long overdue. I personally find it offensive. I haven't really stopped to think about all of the possible ramifications but I think gay servicemen and straight servicemen can both serve equally well.

[sarge87]

I think ending DADT has been long overdue. I personally find it offensive. I haven't really stopped to think about all of the possible ramifications but I think gay servicemen and straight servicemen can both serve equally well.

Offensive as it may seem, it has served the military well in the past. Both straight and gay serve equally well already. Just nobody knows what their orientations are.

 

I'm just looking at the bigger picture, and not from a myopic feelgood stance.

[Husker_x]

The military isn't girl scout camp. It isn't selling magazine subscriptions. It deals with war. In 2010 our military has the power to annihilate everyone on the planet. For a politician with Obama's piddling pedigree to make this decision on his own is worse than ridiculous. I have zero problem with homosexuals or their lifestyle choices, but when it comes to military matters, the most serious matters, it should be left up to the professionals that run it and know best how such a changer would impact the cohesion and wellbeing of the men and women in combat.

 

The cynic in me sees this as nothing less than Obama trying to salvage what's left of his base by making yet another purely partisan and political decision.

[carlfense]

I think ending DADT has been long overdue. I personally find it offensive. I haven't really stopped to think about all of the possible ramifications but I think gay servicemen and straight servicemen can both serve equally well.

Offensive as it may seem, it has served the military well in the past. Both straight and gay serve equally well already. Just nobody knows what their orientations are.

 

I'm just looking at the bigger picture, and not from a myopic feelgood stance.

 

If they serve equally well why does one side have to keep their sexual preferences hidden from friends and family and the other side does not? Myopic and feelgood has nothing to do with it. There are already gays in the military; everyone knows that and most accept that. What is gained by making them live a lie? How would you feel if the straight service members were required to act gay at all times . . . and if they did not they would be discharged? I'd imagine that wouldn't be particularly "ok" with you. Might want to check the mirror for that myopia . . . it might be closer than you think.

[carlfense]

The military isn't girl scout camp. It isn't selling magazine subscriptions. It deals with war. In 2010 our military has the power to annihilate everyone on the planet. For a politician with Obama's piddling pedigree to make this decision on his own is worse than ridiculous. I have zero problem with homosexuals or their lifestyle choices, but when it comes to military matters, the most serious matters, it should be left up to the professionals that run it and know best how such a changer would impact the cohesion and wellbeing of the men and women in combat.

The cynic in me sees this as nothing less than Obama trying to salvage what's left of his base by making yet another purely partisan and political decision.

 

I agree 100% with the bolded part. Obama is a politician and he will do what ever will garner him support.

 

However, I can't agree with your first paragraph. The military often has to be drug kicking and screaming away from harmful traditions. (Women, gays, etc.) The government should always run the military . . . you have to remember who is the dog and who is the tail. My favorite professor of military history said that war is just an extension of politics. Neither the military nor war serve a purpose outside of political goals. It's far too intertwined to just say "hey, let the professionals handle it."

[sarge87]

I think ending DADT has been long overdue. I personally find it offensive. I haven't really stopped to think about all of the possible ramifications but I think gay servicemen and straight servicemen can both serve equally well.

Offensive as it may seem, it has served the military well in the past. Both straight and gay serve equally well already. Just nobody knows what their orientations are.

 

I'm just looking at the bigger picture, and not from a myopic feelgood stance.

 

If they serve equally well why does one side have to keep their sexual preferences hidden from friends and family and the other side does not? Myopic and feelgood has nothing to do with it. There are already gays in the military; everyone knows that and most accept that. What is gained by making them live a lie? How would you feel if the straight service members were required to act gay at all times . . . and if they did not they would be discharged? I'd imagine that wouldn't be particularly "ok" with you. Might want to check the mirror for that myopia . . . it might be closer than you think.

The military has many other rules on sexual conduct that apply to everyone -- gay or straight. Officers are not permitted to fraternize with enlistees. Sex is barred on bases except for married personnel in their living quarters.

 

Even off-site sex is regulated. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, anal and oral intercourse are prohibited anywhere, anytime, by anybody. Adultery is still punishable by dishonorable discharge. - Under your classification of "living a lie" these people would be guilty of such, as they couldn't openly admit they partake in such activities - which i might add, are by-in-large tolerated in today's society - but are subject to threat of military justice repercussions.

 

The military is not an all inclusive organization. They are allowed to discriminate against people based on fitness, education, prior criminal history, and medical handicaps whereas the private sector would be subject to EEOC laws.

 

Also, I think you misunderstood the definition of the word....

• Myopic adj.

2 : a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something

 

....and the pejorative of narrow-mindedness

 

• Narrow-minded adj.

1. having a biased or illiberal viewpoint; bigoted, intolerant, or prejudiced

 

....two words constantly being butchered in the English language much the same as the difference between irony and coincidence.

 

The problem is you're bringing an emotional argument into a rational discussion. My point was being about the ramifications of repealing DADT, and its impact on the military not from sociological, but from a logistical standpoint. Are we headed for another segregation issue, this time not based in race, but on sexual orientation?

 

I think discrimination in society is detrimental and quite silly. We are not talking about how racial discrimination is equal to sexual orientation, as they are two totally different issues. As a friend told me once on this issue; "I can't hide the fact that I am black. If I'm gay, you wouldn't know it unless I told you." So I could see from his standpoint the frustration he has with the LBGT movement, who have been trying to draw parallels to the Civil Rights movements of the 60's. The problem is the LBGT movement has so politicized the issue, they are creating blowback by people who would normally be sympathetic to their cause.

 

My agnostic views on religion are much the same in regards to homosexuality. There is no scientific proof to any of the above, so I can't make a conclusion. The lingering question of biology remains at the core of the debate. Is it possible that one is born with the characteristic of being homosexual, or is it solely a learned behavior embedded in cultural norms? The simple answer would be why anyone want be born this way? My answer to them would be is a criminal simply born that way, or were there external factors in their life that made them choose the criminal lifestyle? Researchers since the nineteen-fifties have studied homosexuality in a variety of ways, through genetics, animal behavior, and even birth order, but very few have come to a conclusive answer that can withstand scrutiny. I don't think until those questions are answered, where people can have a basic understanding, minus the politics, of why some have the proclivity to homosexuality, there will ever be a true acceptance whereas now, it is merely tolerated.

[carlfense]

I think ending DADT has been long overdue. I personally find it offensive. I haven't really stopped to think about all of the possible ramifications but I think gay servicemen and straight servicemen can both serve equally well.

Offensive as it may seem, it has served the military well in the past. Both straight and gay serve equally well already. Just nobody knows what their orientations are.

 

I'm just looking at the bigger picture, and not from a myopic feelgood stance.

 

If they serve equally well why does one side have to keep their sexual preferences hidden from friends and family and the other side does not? Myopic and feelgood has nothing to do with it. There are already gays in the military; everyone knows that and most accept that. What is gained by making them live a lie? How would you feel if the straight service members were required to act gay at all times . . . and if they did not they would be discharged? I'd imagine that wouldn't be particularly "ok" with you. Might want to check the mirror for that myopia . . . it might be closer than you think.

The military has many other rules on sexual conduct that apply to everyone -- gay or straight. Officers are not permitted to fraternize with enlistees. Sex is barred on bases except for married personnel in their living quarters.

 

Even off-site sex is regulated. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, anal and oral intercourse are prohibited anywhere, anytime, by anybody. Adultery is still punishable by dishonorable discharge. - Under your classification of "living a lie" these people would be guilty of such, as they couldn't openly admit they partake in such activities - which i might add, are by-in-large tolerated in today's society - but are subject to threat of military justice repercussions.

 

The military is not an all inclusive organization. They are allowed to discriminate against people based on fitness, education, prior criminal history, and medical handicaps whereas the private sector would be subject to EEOC laws.

 

Also, I think you misunderstood the definition of the word....

• Myopic adj.

2 : a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something

 

....and the pejorative of narrow-mindedness

 

• Narrow-minded adj.

1. having a biased or illiberal viewpoint; bigoted, intolerant, or prejudiced

 

....two words constantly being butchered in the English language much the same as the difference between irony and coincidence.

 

The problem is you're bringing an emotional argument into a rational discussion. My point was being about the ramifications of repealing DADT, and its impact on the military not from sociological, but from a logistical standpoint. Are we headed for another segregation issue, this time not based in race, but on sexual orientation?

 

I think discrimination in society is detrimental and quite silly. We are not talking about how racial discrimination is equal to sexual orientation, as they are two totally different issues. As a friend told me once on this issue; "I can't hide the fact that I am black. If I'm gay, you wouldn't know it unless I told you." So I could see from his standpoint the frustration he has with the LBGT movement, who have been trying to draw parallels to the Civil Rights movements of the 60's. The problem is the LBGT movement has so politicized the issue, they are creating blowback by people who would normally be sympathetic to their cause.

 

My agnostic views on religion are much the same in regards to homosexuality. There is no scientific proof to any of the above, so I can't make a conclusion. The lingering question of biology remains at the core of the debate. Is it possible that one is born with the characteristic of being homosexual, or is it solely a learned behavior embedded in cultural norms? The simple answer would be why anyone want be born this way? My answer to them would be is a criminal simply born that way, or were there external factors in their life that made them choose the criminal lifestyle? Researchers since the nineteen-fifties have studied homosexuality in a variety of ways, through genetics, animal behavior, and even birth order, but very few have come to a conclusive answer that can withstand scrutiny. I don't think until those questions are answered, where people can have a basic understanding, minus the politics, of why some have the proclivity to homosexuality, there will ever be a true acceptance whereas now, it is merely tolerated.

 

I don't think you addressed my points at all:

1. You yourself said that gay and straight people serve equally well.

2. There are already gays serving in the military.

3. What exactly is gained by making them live in constant fear of being discovered and discharged?

 

(You nailed the differences between myopia and narrow mindedness. I should have thought it through a little further. Apologies.)

[dizzturbedNUfan]

I really don't have any business posting on this, I have no children in the Military and I don't hang out with gay's to understand their point of view. I have nothing against them, they just make me vomit when I see them together. It's not religous, I don't really beleive a single word in the bible. But I do know two families that have gay sons in the Military. Had this law not been in place they would have never let their sons enlist for fear of having the crap beat out of them all the time or killed. I'm not speaking for all of them, but in these two cases they are not concerned that they are treated differently, it's more of a safety issue in their minds. Sure, we would all love this nice warm fuzzy world where your differences don't matter, but that's not reality.

[strigori]

I think ending DADT has been long overdue. I personally find it offensive. I haven't really stopped to think about all of the possible ramifications but I think gay servicemen and straight servicemen can both serve equally well.

Offensive as it may seem, it has served the military well in the past. Both straight and gay serve equally well already. Just nobody knows what their orientations are.

 

I'm just looking at the bigger picture, and not from a myopic feelgood stance.

 

If they serve equally well why does one side have to keep their sexual preferences hidden from friends and family and the other side does not? Myopic and feelgood has nothing to do with it. There are already gays in the military; everyone knows that and most accept that. What is gained by making them live a lie? How would you feel if the straight service members were required to act gay at all times . . . and if they did not they would be discharged? I'd imagine that wouldn't be particularly "ok" with you. Might want to check the mirror for that myopia . . . it might be closer than you think.

The military has many other rules on sexual conduct that apply to everyone -- gay or straight. Officers are not permitted to fraternize with enlistees. Sex is barred on bases except for married personnel in their living quarters.

 

Even off-site sex is regulated. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, anal and oral intercourse are prohibited anywhere, anytime, by anybody. Adultery is still punishable by dishonorable discharge. - Under your classification of "living a lie" these people would be guilty of such, as they couldn't openly admit they partake in such activities - which i might add, are by-in-large tolerated in today's society - but are subject to threat of military justice repercussions.

 

The military is not an all inclusive organization. They are allowed to discriminate against people based on fitness, education, prior criminal history, and medical handicaps whereas the private sector would be subject to EEOC laws.

 

Also, I think you misunderstood the definition of the word....

• Myopic adj.

2 : a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something

 

....and the pejorative of narrow-mindedness

 

• Narrow-minded adj.

1. having a biased or illiberal viewpoint; bigoted, intolerant, or prejudiced

 

....two words constantly being butchered in the English language much the same as the difference between irony and coincidence.

 

The problem is you're bringing an emotional argument into a rational discussion. My point was being about the ramifications of repealing DADT, and its impact on the military not from sociological, but from a logistical standpoint. Are we headed for another segregation issue, this time not based in race, but on sexual orientation?

 

I think discrimination in society is detrimental and quite silly. We are not talking about how racial discrimination is equal to sexual orientation, as they are two totally different issues. As a friend told me once on this issue; "I can't hide the fact that I am black. If I'm gay, you wouldn't know it unless I told you." So I could see from his standpoint the frustration he has with the LBGT movement, who have been trying to draw parallels to the Civil Rights movements of the 60's. The problem is the LBGT movement has so politicized the issue, they are creating blowback by people who would normally be sympathetic to their cause.

 

My agnostic views on religion are much the same in regards to homosexuality. There is no scientific proof to any of the above, so I can't make a conclusion. The lingering question of biology remains at the core of the debate. Is it possible that one is born with the characteristic of being homosexual, or is it solely a learned behavior embedded in cultural norms? The simple answer would be why anyone want be born this way? My answer to them would be is a criminal simply born that way, or were there external factors in their life that made them choose the criminal lifestyle? Researchers since the nineteen-fifties have studied homosexuality in a variety of ways, through genetics, animal behavior, and even birth order, but very few have come to a conclusive answer that can withstand scrutiny. I don't think until those questions are answered, where people can have a basic understanding, minus the politics, of why some have the proclivity to homosexuality, there will ever be a true acceptance whereas now, it is merely tolerated.

Do you really think the part that is bold is enforced in any way shape or form?

[sarge87]

I think ending DADT has been long overdue. I personally find it offensive. I haven't really stopped to think about all of the possible ramifications but I think gay servicemen and straight servicemen can both serve equally well.

Offensive as it may seem, it has served the military well in the past. Both straight and gay serve equally well already. Just nobody knows what their orientations are.

 

I'm just looking at the bigger picture, and not from a myopic feelgood stance.

 

If they serve equally well why does one side have to keep their sexual preferences hidden from friends and family and the other side does not? Myopic and feelgood has nothing to do with it. There are already gays in the military; everyone knows that and most accept that. What is gained by making them live a lie? How would you feel if the straight service members were required to act gay at all times . . . and if they did not they would be discharged? I'd imagine that wouldn't be particularly "ok" with you. Might want to check the mirror for that myopia . . . it might be closer than you think.

The military has many other rules on sexual conduct that apply to everyone -- gay or straight. Officers are not permitted to fraternize with enlistees. Sex is barred on bases except for married personnel in their living quarters.

 

Even off-site sex is regulated. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, anal and oral intercourse are prohibited anywhere, anytime, by anybody. Adultery is still punishable by dishonorable discharge. - Under your classification of "living a lie" these people would be guilty of such, as they couldn't openly admit they partake in such activities - which i might add, are by-in-large tolerated in today's society - but are subject to threat of military justice repercussions.

 

The military is not an all inclusive organization. They are allowed to discriminate against people based on fitness, education, prior criminal history, and medical handicaps whereas the private sector would be subject to EEOC laws.

 

Also, I think you misunderstood the definition of the word....

• Myopic adj.

2 : a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something

 

....and the pejorative of narrow-mindedness

 

• Narrow-minded adj.

1. having a biased or illiberal viewpoint; bigoted, intolerant, or prejudiced

 

....two words constantly being butchered in the English language much the same as the difference between irony and coincidence.

 

The problem is you're bringing an emotional argument into a rational discussion. My point was being about the ramifications of repealing DADT, and its impact on the military not from sociological, but from a logistical standpoint. Are we headed for another segregation issue, this time not based in race, but on sexual orientation?

 

I think discrimination in society is detrimental and quite silly. We are not talking about how racial discrimination is equal to sexual orientation, as they are two totally different issues. As a friend told me once on this issue; "I can't hide the fact that I am black. If I'm gay, you wouldn't know it unless I told you." So I could see from his standpoint the frustration he has with the LBGT movement, who have been trying to draw parallels to the Civil Rights movements of the 60's. The problem is the LBGT movement has so politicized the issue, they are creating blowback by people who would normally be sympathetic to their cause.

 

My agnostic views on religion are much the same in regards to homosexuality. There is no scientific proof to any of the above, so I can't make a conclusion. The lingering question of biology remains at the core of the debate. Is it possible that one is born with the characteristic of being homosexual, or is it solely a learned behavior embedded in cultural norms? The simple answer would be why anyone want be born this way? My answer to them would be is a criminal simply born that way, or were there external factors in their life that made them choose the criminal lifestyle? Researchers since the nineteen-fifties have studied homosexuality in a variety of ways, through genetics, animal behavior, and even birth order, but very few have come to a conclusive answer that can withstand scrutiny. I don't think until those questions are answered, where people can have a basic understanding, minus the politics, of why some have the proclivity to homosexuality, there will ever be a true acceptance whereas now, it is merely tolerated.

Do you really think the part that is bold is enforced in any way shape or form?

Yes it is, but the soldier have to be caught in the act, or have a complaint filed against him or her. Again, under DADT, questions about sexual history and investigations into such are prohibited without a formal complaint.

[Spooky Tooth]

This attempt is so wrong-headed, unless barracks and showers are going to be co-ed. But that will never happen. Why? Because males are sexually attracted and aroused by females, and vice versa. Can you imagine the furor if the military said women MUST shower with men, that they need to be more enlightened? Of course that would not happen, but it is apparently fine to tell straight males that gay men can shower and live with them--as openly gay men--and they just need to be more enlightened. How is that equitable?

 

Give me a break. I don't care how long gays have been showering with straights, as long as they were not allowed to reveal their sexual interest it did not matter. This changes all that.

[808Husker in KCMO]

I'd like to chime in on this.

 

I've had gay Soldiers under me. Ive served alongside gay Soldiers. I patterned my conduct as an NCO after a gay NCO that I had the pleasure of serving with. Gays openly serve in the military now. The don't ask don't tell policy is enforced only when convenient for the Command. It is used as a weapon to discharge Soldiers with other issues that aren't as cut-and-dry.

 

Additionally, US v. Meno effectively overturned the consensual sodomy portion of Article 125, UCMJ. Similarly ranked Soldiers of the opposite sex cannot be prohibited from consensual,non-commercial, oral and anal sex. See Below

 

U.S. Army Court of Appeal. A male servicemember was convicted of engaging in oral and anal sex acts with a similarly ranked female servicemember in his barracks room. The court examined the conviction in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas law forbidding private consensual homosexual sex. The court ruled that, under Lawrence, Private Meno could not be convicted for private, consensual, non-commercial, oral and anal sex with a female servicemember who was of a similar rank. The court ruled that Private Meno had a right to engage in private, consensual sexual relations while in the military since there were no military extenuating factors in this circumstance that would preclude Lawrence from applying to this court’s decision. The court further ruled that Private Meno could not be convicted of committing indecent acts because the sexual conduct did not violate any regulations, did not prejudice good order and discipline, and did not bring discredit upon the armed forces

[bhamHusker]

I'm an Army veteran (19K 3ID 1991-1994), and I think this is long overdue. The discipline and cohesion arguments don't hold water when you look at countries who have allowed gays to serve openly for years. Look no further than Israel's IDF. This is arguably one of the most effective, well disciplined militaries in the world, and have allowed gays to serve openly for 17 years.