Of course they can. Don't ask, don't tell. There were at least 3 gay Soldiers in one of my battalions and it was common knowledge that the female barracks on post had at least three dozen lesbians. It was actually a source of frustration for many of the male Soldiers who were annoyed at how protective the lesbians were of the barracks, making it difficult for the men to "introduce themselves" if you will. I always found this kind of funny - whenever I heard such a gripe, I would always ask, "is it so much of a hassle to drive downtown to the club and associate with women who do not live on base?" They always had a zinging retort: "but sir, what if you're on staff duty? Then you'll have to come pick us up from jail after we get arrested." Touche, young Soldier.
The prohibition is on serving while being openly gay. There are lots of prohibitions. It is not a bar to service. It is a bar to conduct. There are lots of those associated with service.
The paradox here is that...
1. There is political motivation to encourage people to openly identify themselves by their sexuality
2. Changing DADT will be seen as a shift in mainstream values to accepting open identification of one's self by one's sexuality
3. Were it not for the political motivations underlying this shift for a change in policy, then the policy could quietly change with very little notice or fanfare
4. But the political nature of the debate is what creates so much resistance to changing the DADT policy, because changing the policy will be perceived as a victory in a culturally divided political battle
The military is perceived by many (at least recently) as the epitome of traditional American values - what is best about America. To bring about this change in the military is to send a strong message that America is changing and to use the military's policy change as a means of persuading people that the change is good, or at least acceptable. Some people don't want that change. Other people do. On both sides of the fence, the most fervent proponents and opponents have political motivations for their views and understand the significant persuasive effect of changing policy in order to induce the military to accept openly homosexual servicemembers. I think that is the true source of concern among the military. They do not want to be dragged into this ugly political nonsense. Unfortunately for them, it is not their call.
Bookmarks