I’ve always opposed DADT on principle, even when I was in the service. I knew 3 gay people while I served and would not have “turned them in.” Even though I opposed the policy itself, many did not, and the military culture in the 1990′s was simply not ready for sudden and complete integration. Chris would like to force institutions like the military to conform to one set of social mores, but that is dangerous in the case of the military. A little over a decade has passed and I think the military could accept the integration of gays, so I agree that DADT should go.

The British has done away with the restriction of homosexuals from joining the military. I didn’t see their straight servicemen fleeing in fear, did you?

DADT was a compromise solution implemented by Clinton and Congress. At the time it was thought that open homosexuality in the military would hurt military effectiveness. For similar reasons, women were banned from combat positions for many years.

Attitudes change and they are changing with DADT as well. I think policymakers were wise to not enforce a drastic cultural change on an institution as important as the military. Over time, I think many, if not most, in the military would like to see DADT go away and allow openly gay people to serve, so I look at DADT as a temporary step on the way to full integration of gays.

Even so, there are challenges ahead. Many military benefits are based on legal spousal relationships – relationships that are not legally recognized in the US for gay people. So society still has a ways to go in that regard as well.