I really feel that DADT was a good idea in theory - serving while keeping ones' sex life private seems as though it's the best course of action in any workplace and for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. It also allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons to serve in the military with more or less equal footing as the rest of the members of the service.
DADT also had stipulations which proved it to be a flawed system: If members of any branch of the armed services were outed through any means, or proved to have been practicing homosexual behavior, they were discharged from the service. In addition, the discharges were, naturally, not honorable discharges. As such, upon leaving the service, finding employment elsewhere became difficult because the status of their termination from any given branch of the United States military. In this way, what was meant as an anti-discriminatory bit of legislation was tainted with that bit of discrimination, resulting in those who were gay and serving not quite on even footing with their heterosexual brethren in the service.
With that said, repealing DADT and allowing servicemen and women to openly serve is, in my opinion, for the best. The classes you're required to take may seem stupid to you and to most, but ultimately, the military can't function as well if there are clear cracks in the firmament, as it were; if acceptance of those who choose to openly serve was not enforced, then there could potentially be sever issues amongst the troops - if you don't work as a unit of more or less equals, the job doesn't get done as efficiently.
I'm all for the new legislation, but if I were to serve, I still wouldn't do so completely openly, nor would the majority of those in the LGBT community - but it's nice to know that now, if someone's "outed", they're not going to lose their job under less than spectacular terms.
__________________
It's a hand-me-down, the thoughts are broken
Perhaps they're better left unsung
|