The Right to Serve, Research Paper Example

Background

The phrase Right to Serve is has been used to refer to the national wide US youth campaign against the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) recruitment policy of the US Armed Forces. The policy orchestrates a 17-year-old discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals with interests of serving their country in the military. The US government sanctioned the sexual orientation discrimination in 1993 when President Clinton signed the policy into law.

DADT bans any person who openly admits to being gay, lesbian, or bisexual from continuing service or enlisting to serve in the US Armed Forces. As such, while discrimination based on sexual orientation has been addressed in many other areas of the US constitution, it has been the basis of ousting many of those willing to serve their country in the forces, for the last 17 years. DADT represents a government-suctioned policy to bar everyone but bisexuals in serving the country (Melissa 83-85).

The right to serve movement was originally a project of the Soulforce Organization. The objective was primarily to oppose the oppression of gay people, by refusing them an opportunity to serve in the US military. Youth activists from over 30 US cities joined the right to serve equality campaign from 2006 summer through fall. The campaign was supported by many human rights organizations, civil groups and media.

It must be noted however that the DADT policy does not refuse entry to all gays and lesbians but to those who admit to being gays and lesbians. The essence of the DADT policy is in, ‘if you do not say it, it is okay to be gay and serve in the military; just as long as you do not say it.’

Right to Serve Debate

Proponents of the DADT law argue that refusing to admit openly gays and lesbians into the force is not discrimination. According to Gen. Colin Powell, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, no one has a constitutional right to serve in the US military. Being eligible to serve is primary a consideration of military effectiveness. The begging questions remain though. Are gays and lesbians not effective just because they have a distinct sexual orientation? Is being a bisexual the mark of being effective for military service? Is there not a single gay man in America who has military effectiveness?

There is a great need to repeal DADT. Some research studies have claimed that over 13,500 non-bisexuals have been denied entry into the US military since 1994, just because they were gay or lesbian. This means that the US government has lost the potential and the contribution of 13,500 able bodied youths. Not only that, Most of these youths who are rejected in the service of a country they love, their country, are prone to psychological trauma and low self-esteem. It is a means of poisoning our youth and making great rejects out of our national talent, (Soul Force). This young men and women being turned away from service constitute the single greatest resource that has made, established and maintained America as a great nation; human resource.

Gays and lesbians are increasingly becoming part of the US culture. There are 24% more gays and lesbians now that there was in 1993. That means, with the rate of increase, the bulk of American youths will be non-bisexuals pretty soon. So where will the country get its servicemen if the gays and lesbians won’t be allowed to serve? DADT has clearly been surpassed by time.

Contradictions

Contradictions evolving from DADT are many and so far still unaddressed. An instance of these contradictions is the freedom of Expression guaranteed by the constitution to every individual. An individual has the right to say he is gay or she is a lesbian. An individual must not be forced to maintain silence when he or she is willing to speak. Gays and lesbians have the right to say they are who they are, and still be eligible to serve their country. What is the use of giving somebody the right to speak and then demanding, within the same breathe that they keep silent about what they are willing to speak?

The very language used to phrase the DADT policy is in it, self-defeating. By baring those who openly admit to be gay, the government does not in any way prevent gays from being in the forces. It only bars those who are bold enough to admit it. Thousands of serving soldiers are gay and lesbians, only that they are not bold enough to own up. According to a survey published in New York Times, over 65, 000 soldiers serve in silence. The ones who are bold to be who they are; are the ones who get turned away (Dyer 56-63).

Chances are, objectively deducing, that the finest men and women who could serve the US military are those who are gay and bold enough to be gay. An objective review of DADT would reveal that the initial intent of the Bill is not served right by allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation regardless of ability and qualification (Dyer 56-63). The same study reported that over 41,000 US citizens able and willing to serve in the forces fail to, just because they did not lie or hide their sexual orientation. By 2006, a total of 11,057 soldiers had been discharged under the DADT policy. The replacement cost of these soldiers has already surpassed $364 million of taxpayer’s money.

Contemporary Considerations

The US is currently engaged in two prolonged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Pentagon is pressed for numbers. In fact, the military chiefs had to lower the recruitment standards at the close of 2009. The lowered standards, so called moral waivers, have been granted to thousands of Army recruits with a history in misdemeanor and or felony convictions. The numbers of questionable characters that have been admitted to the forces have doubled from 2003. Some of these are rapists and armed robbers. A recent recruit, Private Steven Green, was accused of defiling a 14-year-old girl in Iraq before murdering her and her entire family. While moral characters stands as the reason to bar gay men from serving their country, what moral pillars are the military chiefs building with hiring such recruits?

By September 2009, the Department of Defense had lost 11,077 soldiers for being gay, including some 322 linguists who are desperately needed as it is. This loss is then compounded by the thousands of gay recruits being turned away from service for admitting to be gay. The US needs able-bodied and qualified men to serve in these wars and to maintain the defense of the country at its prime. The war against terror and continued administration of justice in the world requires each and every youth willing to serve his or her country. We cannot afford to loose the service of any that is willing to shoulder the responsibility of building America further (Melissa 79-81)

Britain, Israel and Australia allow gay men to serve their country in the military. These men and women serve with morale, character and dedication, despite their gay and lesbian orientation. The honor and duty of serving one’s country goes beyond sexual orientation (Soul Force). Being gay does not limit one in his ability and reliability of service. There is just no reason why the US should victimize the youth while other progressive societies in the world do not. Is this the land of freedom, truly?

The Right Thing to Do

US president Barrack Obama promised to work with the military and the Congress in repealing the anti-gay service law, in his State of the Union address. Talking of the need to eliminate the ban on military personnel who were openly gay, he said, “It is the right thing to do”. And indeed it is. While not making a commitment or issuing a deadline, the 38 words used by President Barrack Obama in support of gay’s right to serve drew a standing ovation from Defense Secretary and the Congress at large.

Repealing against the Clinton-era policy is 17 years overdue as it is. Time has come when we must not, in the words of the President, deny gay Americans their right to serve a country they love, just because they are who they are. The US constitution no longer allows discrimination against color, race and gender to be a criterion of recruiting military personnel. It is now time to remove the discrimination against Americans based on sexual orientation for the same purposes.

Works Cited

Dyer, Kate. Gays in Uniform: The Pentagon’s Secret Reports. New York: Alyson Publications, 1990.

Melissa, Wells. Exclusion: Homosexuals and the Right to Serve. Washington DC: Regnery, 1993.

“Right to Serve.” Soul Force. 12 Aug. 2006. 23 Sep. 2006.http://www.soulforce.org/righttoserve