” Even with that, according to Belkin, Clintons strategy is much less effective than most people prefer to believe. The writer shows how the policy basically works the same as gay-related military policies that functioned before, as it is simply meant to seem less discriminatory. From the writers perspective, U.S. leaders have problems accepting that homosexuality is not actually an impediment in the well-being of the American public and of the armed forces. “As was the case in Australia, Canada, Israel, and Britain, American military leaders can preserve military effectiveness after they lift the ban by holding all soldiers to the same professional standards and by insisting that regardless of personal beliefs about homosexuality, they expect professional conduct from all service members” (Belkin).
Belkins article supports the belief that “Dont ask, dont tell” is ineffective, thus assisting me in supporting my point-of-view regarding how it is wrong to support an ideology that is based on tales rather than being backed by actual facts.
Conditions in the U.S. military are critical, especially given the fact that the public is somewhat unable to distinguish between reality and falseness. People across the country are presented with limited information concerning the genuine effectiveness of “Dont ask, dont tell.”
Upholding “Dont Ask, Dont Tell
Warren L. Ratliffs view concerning the military strategy meant to limit homosexuals in the armed forces is supportive toward the policy. Ratliff considers that the approach is particularly efficient and that it should in point of fact be upgraded to be less permissive. From the writers perspective, the policy is one of the main reasons for which the military managed to survive for this long without being seriously affected as a result of homosexual interferences. By analyzing several court cases dealing with gay individuals in the military criticizing “Dont ask, dont tell,” Ratliff apparently wants to underline that the authorities need to strengthen their take on the matter and bring back conventional views concerning sexual preferences in the armed forces.
This article is important because it brings an anti-homosexual account into discussion, presenting me with the opportunity to examine a more subjective opinion.
In spite of the fact that Ratliff is apparently concerned about proving that homosexuals do not belong in the military, he actually damages the image of “Dont ask, dont tell” by highlighting its imperfections.
There is presently much controversy concerning the U.S. militarys position in regard to homosexual individuals serving in the armed forces. Whereas matters might appear calm, conditions are critical, considering the numerous cases of people being discriminated on account of their sexual preferences and with no regard about their ability and their dedication to serve their country. Some of the most influential individuals in the country are apparently unwilling to intervene in favor of gay individuals, most probably as a result of knowing that parts of the general public (large numbers of supporters) are not yet prepared to adopt unconventional concepts. Thus, the “Dont ask, dont tell” policy continues to harm individuals that are only guilty of expressing themselves freely.
Belkin, Aaron “Dont Ask, Dont Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity?,” Parameters 33.2 (2003)
Belkin, Aaron and Bateman, Geoffrey eds., Dont Ask, Dont Tell: Debating the Gay Ban in the Military (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2003)
Halley, Janet E. Dont: A Readers Guide to the Militarys Anti-Gay Policy (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999)
Ratliff, Warren L. “Upholding “Dont Ask, Dont Tell,” Yale Law Journal 106.2 (1996)
Riggle, Ellen D.B. And Tadlock, Barry L. eds., Gays and Lesbians in the Democratic Process: Public Policy, Public Opinion, and Political Representation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999)
“Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces.” Retrieved March 6, 2011,.