A Lesson in Optimism on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Ed. Note: This post is from Jarrod Chlapowski, a U.S. Army veteran who recently joined the Human Rights Campaign to consult on ending the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Having been trained as a Korean linguist and cryptologic voice interceptor, he served in Korea, supporting the 3rd Military Intelligence Battalion on more than 300 sensitive reconnaissance operation missions. Chlapowski chose not to re-enlist in the Army because of the excessive burden of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

The standard arguments for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) generally fall under three categories – detriment to national security, fiscal waste, and civil injustice – and it is precisely these categories that Representative Murphy (D-PA) laid out quite eloquently in his introduction to last night’s special order on the House floor.  Assembled beside Murphy were a varied cast of Congressional supporters for repeal, each one playing to his or her individual strengths to speak to a particular aspect of the argument.  Recent cosponsor Rep. Tim Waltz (D-MN), for example – the highest ranking enlisted veteran to serve in Congress, ever – focused on unit cohesion and the effects of losing a valued service member, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) recognized the work of the Palm Center which is based in her district, and Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) acknowledged the fact that DADT affects all Americans, expanding the affected constituency beyond the LGBT community.  

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), who recently spoke at Chicago’s Salute to Gay Vets in August, shared the experiences of gay discharges Lee Reinhardt and Sandy Tsao, reading an emotional letter from Sandy to the President to great effect. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) provided interesting contrast with Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), the former a Congressional freshman and the latter comparing today’s debate with the one witnessed in her own freshman year in Congress.   Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) took advantage of new data and discussed at great length COL Om Prakash’s The Efficacy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”  Rounding out the cadre of supporters, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) offered that, on top of halting the loss of critical personnel, repeal of DADT would allow reintegration of discharged service members into the military.

With perhaps the exception of continual reference to COL Om Prakash’s article, not much of what was said last night was necessarily new, which may indicate how prolific DADT data points have become.  The key learning points in last night’s event, then, were not found in the speeches of the nine members of Congress showing support for Murphy, but in the sole representative of the opposition, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX).

Rep. Gohmert didn’t spend too much time discussing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but instead spent a good portion of his hour railing against the hate crimes amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill (you can see videos of his unseemly remarks here).  But what he did say – and this is important – was that the upcoming debate on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ will not be over whether or not gays should serve in the military, but whether or not they should serve openly.  Open service, in his mind, would be a distraction and destroy unit cohesion.  He went on to say that heterosexual ‘openness’ was also inappropriate in the military, which would lead one to presume that Gohmert’s definition of ‘open’ is a caricature of what has been demonstrated in the 20-plus countries who have successfully implemented open service.

However, there are two points worth noting:

• Gohmert being the only member present opposed to repeal does not mean the opposition is not a serious threat.
• Gohmert’s interpretation of ‘openness’ in the service is shared by many in Congress, and not just the radical Right.  Moderates who simply do not have a deep understanding of the policy, or who have yet to meet a gay or lesbian service member, tend to gravitate towards this idea of overt, rampant sexuality that in reality is not practical nor reasonable given the constraints and professionalism of military service.

Now, the silver lining in all this is that Gohmert has in effect shown some of the Congressional opposition’s playbook.  Over the next few months, events like last night should be watched very carefully so we can know exactly the direction of the DADT debate and strategize appropriately and effectively.  With supporters like Patrick Murphy and other Representatives who spoke last night, this is definitely a fight we can win.  We haven’t won yet, however, and we must be diligent to ensure that we’re prepared when more than just Louie Gohmert step up to the plate.