Shortly before Christmas, President Barack Obama signed into law a repeal of the controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that prohibited gay and lesbian personnel from serving openly in the U.S. armed services. It’s an important milestone in the nation’s military history and a symbol of changing attitudes on the part of the populace as a whole.
In 2001 our youngest son, Jim, told my wife, Karen, and me that he is gay. Since that time we have watched that evolution of society through his eyes as well as our own.
I recall many years ago hearing a rhetorical question posed by my father, who was an outspoken liberal on the subject of racial justice but not on sexual matters. He asked, “Why would anyone want to go to bed with another guy when there are so many good-looking gals available?” My own thinking at the time was similar to his. When Dad died in 2004 at the age of 92, the minister who spoke at his funeral made a point of saying that my father had come to embrace his church’s open acceptance of gays and lesbians.
My attitude had changed by then as well. When I served on active duty in the 1960s, at Officer Candidate School and on board ships, there were jokes about “queers,” “homos,” and worse. In many cases the speakers probably intended no malice, but the effect depends on one’s viewpoint. Jim has told us of the derision he has experienced personally, which brings the hurt home.
Because attitudes cannot be legislated, the change in the law is likely to run into problems as the Department of Defense and individual services develop plans and implement new policies. The law of unintended consequences will probably rear its head, and there may be delays. It was more than 20 years from the time President Harry Truman ordered the racial desegregation of the armed services in 1948 until Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, as CNO in the early 1970s, directed proactive steps toward equal opportunity.
People whom I respect opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Some based their objections on religious beliefs. Marine Commandant James Amos testified to Congress against the change. Amos argued that it would be disruptive to introduce openly gay status during wartime. At the same time, he and the other service chiefs pledged that they would carry out the change in policy if directed by Congress.
One of the telling statements on the subject came during testimony from Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said, “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”
That point was illustrated in the novel My Navy Too (Cedar Hollow Press, 1997). Retired Commander Beth Coye, whose father was a decorated World War II submarine skipper, wrote much of the book. She spent 21 years in the Navy, and her book, though fiction, is based on her experiences as a serving officer and lesbian. To remain in the Navy, Coye had to resort to deception about her feelings. As a commanding officer, she saw the hypocrisy of kicking gay subordinates out of the Navy. She chose to retire in 1980, sooner than planned, so she could be herself.
In 2005 I interviewed Admiral Charles Larson, who saw much change during his 44 years on active duty. Drawing a contrast with the history of racial integration, he predicted, “someday gays will be accepted in the military, but I think that’s one issue that society will have to be ahead of the military.”
He added a personal perspective: “Probably about in 1984–85, our oldest daughter Sigrid . . . confided in [my wife] Sally that she was gay. She asked Sally if she would tell me. Sally said, ‘No, that’s something you’ve got to tell your dad yourself.’ I think Sigrid was concerned about how I, as a military officer, might accept that. But she came and told me, and I told her that made no difference to me—that she was my daughter, and I loved her. . . .
“After I got the news, Sally said that if I had not accepted Sigrid, that she would have had trouble continuing to live with me. . . . I got a real test, because I had no warning. It came to me, and I had to make a decision right there. There was no decision to make; it was an instinctive reaction that she had my support.”
An individual’s sexuality is but one of many factors that make a person who he or she is. Congress has decided that it should no longer be a yes-or-no characteristic that defines the ability to serve. One of the important values in all the services is honor. The nation asks its men and women to serve with integrity, and the recent change in the law will make that possible for many who have been excluded up to now.