Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy

In Anthony's "America How Much Do You Know" Blog, he talks about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy.

The theory behind this policy is that if you join or are in the military and you are gay, you shouldn't tell  anyone and no one should ask. Over time I have learned that policies and rules are made as a reaction of something else being done; meaning someone did something and someone else (with power) made a rule. Reactions only lead to more reactions in politics. Needless to say the policy is being reviewed because a group of people disagreed.

The real question apparently seems to be "Is the military ready to allow them in?"  According Anthony the Pentagon Study found 71.9% of service members thought the repeal would have mixed or no effect' while 6.8% said positive and another 21.2% said negative. This research seems to promote the repeal. It seems it  really shouldn't matter. However Anthony also found in that same study that when troops were asked how it would affect them only 52% said there would be mixed or no effects on their units or tasks. Overwhelmingly 48% said they would treat gay soldiers differently.

Initially when I read this blog I wanted to go to the defense of repealing this action for the benefit of equality of the gay population. However research cannot be denied. 48% of anything is a lot! Almost half of the troops today say they would treat their fellow soldier differently! WOW! I can almost appreciate the fight against the repeal now. Before limiting yourself to the mere accomplishment of more rights for gay soldiers, you must open your eyes and get full perspective. If 48% of your co-workers say they would treat you differently because you're gay...and your job description may include operating heavy artillery....more than the safety of these soldiers might be at stake.
To my understanding the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy has been passed by the House and President Obama. Anthony says the next big question is "How long before the policy takes effect?" Defense Secretary Robert Gates is stressing the military needs time for training, preparation and necessary education before the policy takes effect. While I agree with Anthony and Gates that the military needs time, I must say that it doesn't matter how much time or preparation they take. I can only see one of two possible actions. 1) You treat the military as the work place. Understanding some subject matters are sensitive. Sexual orientation does not affect the job and doesn't need to be known to complete your job. Or 2) You wait for another Reaction....

When have you said too much?... When should you say more?...

Everything has changed in society today; The way we communicate, the way we access information, how we travel, how we eat. Thirty years ago we couldn't go to a computer and speak to our loved ones in another country. There was a time when we couldn't check a movie time, reserve dinner and get directions on the way, all on our phones. We live in a time of selective enlightenment. Thanks to time and technology we now have so many more options. Yet it seems the more options we get, the more we abuse the rights given to us.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There are so many cases in courts today that stem from someone giving their opinion. Unfortunately, we don't always share our opinions with tact and it results with greater consequence sometimes. For example,  Snyder v. Phelps.  The background of this case begins with a Baptist Church picketing the funeral of a dead Marine, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. The signs openly said "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" or God Hates Fags." After court battles fought by the Marine's father, Albert Snyder, the Fourth Circuit Court of appeals overturned the decision of the lower courts, which awarded them $5 million dollar judgement for tort liability. The reasoning behind the judgement in this case is that the "Freedom of Speech" clause of the First Amendment guarantees that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." To add insult to injury, the ruling not to grant Snyder legal recourse led to him having to pay the protesters $16, 510 for the cost of the appeals...So as it stands now, it seems Phelps is off the hook. However there is an exception to this rule when the person or group actively promotes and incites violence or panic. Hate speech, which is speech against a ‘protected class’ based on their race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or age” as governed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Thankfully this is being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Let's be real! If this has gone this far and this long without what seems like to us the obvious judgement that should have taken place.... We live in a sick country! Supreme Court shouldn't have to deal with issues that can be resolved with a simple question shared among the common man. Whatever I am doing or about to do... "Would I want you to do that to me?"
When has too much been said, with disregard for respect of your neighbor? When will more be said as it regards you? Take the ruthless approach that Fred Phelps has taken and direct that energy towards issues that may have more weight! We can change the world!