©
Sooner or later, a generational shift in attitudes will bring an end to the ban against gays, lesbians and bisexuals serving openly in the military. But, for the sake of national security and civil rights, the Pentagon and Congress should make the change sooner.
In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said he wants progress in 2010 toward repealing a law that "denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."
It's a politically risky move for a president who's failed to win passage of health-care reform and other policy initiatives. Pushing for repeal of the ban - and the accompanying "don't ask, don't tell" policy dating back to the Clinton years - could create even bigger rifts in Congress and the nation.
But there are signs that Americans and the armed forces aren't as concerned about the sexual orientation of men and women in uniform as they were a couple of decades ago.
A Gallup poll last summer indicated that 69 percent of Americans now support allowing openly homosexual individuals to serve. Substantial support was found among conservatives (58 percent), weekly churchgoers (60 percent) and Republicans (58 percent) - three groups that strongly opposed the idea in 1993.
In addition, a 2006 Zoby poll showed that almost three-quarters of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan said they're comfortable serving with gay and lesbian colleagues.
"The average 18-year-old has been around gay people, has seen gay people in popular culture, and they're not this bogeyman in the same way they were" in the past, said Paul Rieckhoff, a former Army platoon leader who is head of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
Numerous military leaders, past and present, also recognize the change.
"No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefts of Staff, said during a Senate hearing this week.
Mullen, former commander of the Norfolk-based 2nd Fleet and former chief of naval operations, bluntly told the Senate that lifting the ban is "the right thing to do." He and others now acknowledge that it's counter to America's best interests to keep talented people out of the military simply because of their sexual orientation.
Consider, for example, the effect of the ban on the military's efforts to recruit, train and retain individuals with language skills direly needed in the fight against Middle East extremists.
In 2005, the Government Accountability Office issued a report showing that more than 750 of the men and women drummed out of the military in the first 10 years of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy were in fields defined as critical, such as voice interceptor and translator. Of those, 322 were trained in "an important foreign language," including 54 skilled in Arabic.
The percentage, as we pointed out in an editorial on this subject in October, may seem small - until you ponder what the absence of just one skilled translator at a critical moment can mean to the safety of our troops or to the safety of Americans here at home.
As a gay woman serving aboard a Norfolk-based ship told The Pilot last fall, "What's worse? Having a terrorist attack? Or having a homo stop it?"
There are logistical considerations that must be addressed before the ban can be overturned. Among other things, Pentagon officials must ensure that existing rules against fraternization are sufficient to deal with any problems with discipline and unit cohesion.
Obama could issue an executive order that would suspend the "don't ask, don't tell" policy at least temporarily. But, ultimately, this decision should be made by Congress.
Rep. Patrick Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat and veteran of the war in Iraq, has introduced a bill in the House to lift the ban. He has 187 sponsors - 31 short of the number of votes needed for passage in the House. The Senate also would have to approve the measure.
Certainly, the president could have waited for a more politically expedient time to address this issue, a time that wouldn't risk diverting attention from other problems facing the nation.
But, according to the Defense Department, more than 10,500 service members were discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy between 1997 and 2008.
Much of this occurred at a time when military personnel are being drawn into multiple tours to meet the demands of two wars and at a time when the armed forces need to keep every talented service member they can.
The question isn't whether this is the right time politically to address the ban. The question is how long our nation should continue to delay doing what's in its own best interests and the best interests of gay, lesbian and bisexual service members eager to defend their country.

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Non-military should keep their noses out of this one
Those of us who have not spent long months in a barracks with dozens of others or in ship's berthing cheek-to-cheek with our fellow shipmates for months on end should stay out of the "don't ask, don't tell" debate. I have spent a few weeks shipboard and I can say it would be damnably uncomfortable to know there were gays among the group, although I'm certain there were just by the odds. There is a small bit of comfort from pretending no one in the shower is interested in your private parts in community.
The closest comparison I can think of for civilians to understand this would be to demand same-sex public restrooms in all offices and public areas, rest stops, etc. Think about why we have separate-sex restrooms and showers in the first place.
Openly allowing gays/lesbians in close quarters presumes that proper behavior is completely disinterested and asexual. If that is presumed as true, then the military should also immeidately end the all-male service on submarines.
Facilities
.."same-sex public restrooms in all offices and public areas, rest stops, etc."
Have been in Japan, with uni-sex restrooms, baths, etc, while in the Navy and aboard ship. Best of both worlds. Civilized people know when advances are proper and when not.
I have worked with gays, and found that most are indistinguishable from straight people.
Truism
There is an old statement which applies to religion vs actuality:
"When established dogma conflicts with provable fact, the fact is obviously in error and must be modified or discarded."
NOT true
The staff must have looked long and hard to find statistics that match their one sided view. To say that most churchgoers and conservatives support the idea is plainly a lie. MOST churchgoers feel that homosexuality is a sin. Most conservatives agree.
If you're so certain...
then find some numbers to back up your position. Railing against facts without any evidence to the contrary is like arguing with a tree.
Nope, it's really not that hard to find the facts
It took me about two minutes on Google to find the Gallup/USA Today Poll the staff referenced. Here it is.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/conservatives-shift-favor-openly-gay-service-members.aspx
I know this is hard for a lot of people, but calling something "plainly a lie" does not make it so. You have to have facts, otherwise you could jump around and call the Earth the center of the universe, but facts will still suggest otherwise. I appreciate and respect your opinion, but calling out journalists who have used actual facts while making claims without any of your own speaks volumes about the argument you're making and how much water it holds.
The point
that I was making is that they chose one poll that aided their argument. If that many conservatives approved don't ask, don't tell would be history. So there's your water.
Obviously you don't understand how polling works
Ok, here you go. Professional polling organizations (such as Gallup, Zogby, Pew) design their polls to get a representative sample of the group they are polling, in this case all Americans, then use that information to make a general assumption about people's views with a certain margin of error. Having taken a statistics class, I know that generally the larger the sample, the smaller the margin of error, but also you don't need to have a huge sample (<10,000 people, for instance) in order to get meaningful numbers with margins of error that are about 2-4%, with a confidence interval of greater than 95%. This means that better than 95% of the time, you would have got the same information, plus or minus a few points, with whichever polling group you chose.
The point is, if another group had done the same poll and got vastly different results, one of those polls methodologies would have to be called into serious question. Since these professional polls make their living by being as accurate and unbiased as they can be made, I'd need to see more evidence that the poll was rigged before I would have cause to call this one into question, even if I didn't personally agree with w
Meta-analysis
Again, using meta-analysis which is considered more a powerful tool than a single study, this is simply not true. No one but the very left Op Ed staff would make this argument that churchgoers and conservatives approve of this policy change.
So, what studies back up your point?
If you're truly using meta-analysis, than what studies can you point to that refute the notion provided by the single Gallup poll. I agree with the premise that more polls or more studies would provide more valuable information than a single poll would, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a single poll cannot provide useful insight. If you have references to polls or studies that you can point to that show a majority of conservatives or regular churchgoers are against allowing openly gay men and women serve in the military, I would like to to know.
As always though, I would give consideration to the methodology and accuracy of the polling data before I could make any judgments as to the validity of the data. With the Gallup poll, I found that their methods are generally the same as any professional polling organization, the question appeared to be written in an unbiased way, and the survey was conducted in the same way as the 2004 poll, which showed that the majority of conservatives and churchgoers were opposed to gays in the military.
You are of course entitled to whatever opinion you want, but remember that just because you identify yourself as being a churchg