The Role Of LGBT Discrimination In The Military

Many homosexuals that served in the Military prior to 2015 had to hide who they were and their loved ones throughout their career. They were forbidden to get married and receive the same benefits as their heterosexual

The issue of gays in the military has been controversial in the United States for many decades. Over these decades there have been many different proposals as to what approach to take in order to handle the situation of homosexuals in the military. However, in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running for President of the United States, he made a promise to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military if he was elected (Washington Post). Bill Clinton followed through with his promise, and in December 1993 he instituted “a defense directive that military applicants should not to be asked about their sexual orientation” (Washington Post). This is now known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was the result

This condemnation eventually led to the introduction of the separation of homosexuals from military service as seen with the neutral blue discharges which were often given to homosexual servicemen starting in 1916 . This neutral discharge was then labeled “general” and “undesirable”, resulting in a less honorable discharge. Discharges concerning men who were found to be guilty in engaging in homosexual acts were severely different than those who were neutrally discharged. If this were the case then you were then dishonorably discharged (“Don't Ask, Don't Tell” - Wikipedia). The current policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Harass, Don't Pursue1, derived from the original 1993 Department of Defense Directive 1332.14 coined Don't Ask, Don't Tell, ensures that any American citizen can participate in the Armed Forces. This policy is a step-up from the usual immediate discharge, however, this is only if the service member does not identify

Every day, there are American citizens who risk their lives for the sake of their country's safety. Men and women who believe that justice, peace, and equality should be served. However, within their beliefs, some choose to exclude transgender individuals who have the same rights and freedoms. The American society considers the world to be progressively changing and growing, however, seem to forget that in order for the military to survive the 21st century, diversity is crucial. Although the medical costs may raise the overall healthcare median per year, transgender individuals should have the right to serve in the U.S. armed forces because any human being who meets the physical qualifications and has a willing attitude should have the right to serve.

Karen O. Donovan 's article about military culture explores military tradition, and the impact social changes in society has on the military. These changes included the policy change regarding gays six years ago. At that time gays were acknowledged in the military when the military ended years old

According to the opposing group, the presence of LGBT people in the military undermines the trust among soldiers and can reduce the overall effectiveness of the military. While they think all who want to serve the military should, they also think not all of them are able to. One says there are certain qualifications and expectations in the military and if you are transitioning or

The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is a major policy of the armed forces of the United States, and allows a number of people to serve their country. This policy restricts the United States armed forces from discovering gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy has, in a way, limited homosexuals from completely fulfilling their military duties by forcing them to serve in the military silent about their personal lives. The policy is a violation of equal rights, forces homosexuals to violate the military code of honor, and causes disputes among fellow soldiers and should be repealed.

The United States is not the only ones who use the DADT ban. There are several militaries all over the country that has experienced this ban at one point. For example, they are Australia, Britain; Canada, and Israel just to name a few. They have all changed or lifted their ban without any problems and most often maintained excellent careers and good morale. Belkin, McNichol reports, that “In November 1992, the Australian Defense Forces lifted its ban on open gay and lesbian soldiers. Using all available data from military, academic, non-governmental, and other sources, this report assesses the extent to which the lifting of the gay ban has affected the well-being and performance of the Australian military.” (Belkin, McNichol)

Not surprisingly, there are no enumerated protections for LGBT people within the Constitution, and instead, there is a clause that specifically states that Congress may organize the military as they see fit - everything is to their discretion, according to Article 1, section 8, clause 16 of the US constitution:

The LGBT community should be able to serve openly in the military because the American Constitution proposes a society based on inclusion not exclusion. Now that it is legal in all 50 states to be married to someone of the same sex, and some of our perspectives have changed why have the military's standards not changed.

In September 2011, the United States lifted the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (DADT), which restricted gay, lesbian, and bisexuals from openly serving in the military. This was the first time in American history in which people of every sexual orientation could serve openly (“11 Facts About,” n.d.). This was a momentous occasion for some and not so much for others. For those military members that had served in secret and those members that were firmly against gays and lesbians, this repeal had different meaning. Both groups contained members that have served in the military for years and were products of the Former President Bill Clinton’s 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. For many soldiers of this era, communication issues arose due

12). More trans soldiers have expressed their concern that “when Donald Trump attacks what America calls its heroes or its warrior class, it means it’s only a matter of time before he starts attacking and dissembling the American public, and that’s what I have the most fear of” (Burns and Lucey, para. 16). However, many politicians are fortunately against the ban, saying that gender identity should not be relevant in the military selection process, and “to choose service members on other grounds than military qualifications is social policy and has no place in our military” (Burns and Lucey, para. 31). Perhaps most controversial about the interdiction is Trump’s use of the word “burden” when describing the financial impact of transition-related healthcare, leading to discussion of the financial aspect of the ban.

In 1999, more than 1,000 men and women were discharged from military service due to their sexuality. That number has actually decreased compared to recent years. (Suro NP) Homosexuals were purged from federal employment in 1950, with Bill Clinton updating that policy in 1993 by adding the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” policy. (Deicher 176) This policy doesn’t work and needs to either be updated again or the ban against homosexuals lifted. Gays should be allowed to fight for the military for employment reasons, the right to fight for one’s country, and because they are no different from anyone else. The fact of the matter is that not even experts can argue in favor of keeping the

Gay people have not always been barred from military service, and in fact, have served in the nation's wars throughout its history. The military's official stance toward gays and lesbians has evolved over time, often in tandem with social change. In the 1920's and 1930's, homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment. That attitude began to change in the early 1940's,

Many individuals were highly gracious at this idea, no matter the negativity that surrounds this topic. When referencing to the article by the New York Times on Ashton Carter’s announcement, he states “Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so. After all, our all-volunteer force is built upon having the most qualified Americans” (Rosenberg, 2016). The article’s point of view perceives an appreciative tone towards the U.S. military members and how much they sacrifice. For their sacrifices, the government is willing to help formulate policies that can open doors to a new tolerance and acceptance towards sexual identity. Through my discovery of this change in policy, I realized how much this will help not only the individuals who are suffering from this condition but it will help the companionship of the military. I struggle with being completely open with my fellow service members because of the tension there was on the topic of sexual identity. After hearing the statements made by both the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Secretary, I felt like I am part of a whole different world now that there is an understanding of the struggles and tolls taken to maintain personal happiness in such a demanding career. Having higher authorities who are able to implement policies amongst the U.S. government who have vital points of views on this controversial