Alex Vaughn

This past Tuesday marked the end of the 18-year-long policy – “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The policy was introduced  as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation. Since that time, many have fought for its repeal. Leading the assault on DADT, as it became known, were groups pushing to end the “undesirable” tag that labeled known homosexuals in the military.

As the change finally becomes official, there seems to be little fanfare. No planned celebrations at the White House. No street parties like those in NYC as a result of the passing of gay marriage laws. Perhaps this is simply because no one really wants to draw light to the fact that it has taken this long to end a law that has caused such distress, and instilled in our culture the word “shame” being associated with military service.

The extent of that shame is further illustrated by the fact that many of the 100,000  “undesirable” former members of the military have come forward to ask that their discharge papers be changed to “honorable.” The Navy has already taken a step in the right direction, reaching out at last to Melvin Dwork, who was expelled from the Navy in 1944, in the middle of World War II, after his own boyfriend in the service reported him. He is now 89.

Last month, the one-time corpsman was notified that the “undesirable” discharge on his military record would finally be changed to “honorable.” Dwork says that because of his “undesirable” discharge, he was unable to draw GI benefits and is now in need of an expensive hearing aid that he might be able to afford if he got the pension he deserved. The Navy has said his benefits will be reinstated retroactively, although it’s not clear whether Dwork will receive back pay for the last 67 years. It would be the right thing to do. But can the US even afford such actions? Probably not.

In a September 12 letter, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, and Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, urged the Department of Defense to delay proceedings because of “unresolved paperwork problems.” They didn’t succeed and they won’t, because this battle has been won, and for Republicans, it is time to retreat.

Any further attempt to overturn the end of DADT will only serve to highlight the movement, and cause light to be shone on something that should go away quietly. Why celebrate an error in U.S. history? Rather, as more and more “undesireables” come forward, their stories and anecdotes will allow the nation and the world to put a personal face on this victory for the many service members who can finally be recognized for their service to this country. These people are the reason to celebrate.

Ultimately, the end of DADT will go down in history. Unlike Stonewall, however, it won’t highlight the fights, protests or shame. If anything, it will highlight the good of the US government system: how one president (Clinton) made steps at reform and how another (Obama) took the baton to the finish line. Is this a very hallmark view? Yes, absolutely. I studied American History! While we may lament the decades it took to implement change, the important thing to note is that, in the end, change happened.

Quietly, yet with determination, the military is changing its policies and retraining its personnel. While this is not something being publicized, it is a task of necessity and is being done as the military executes many of its missions, with dignity and very little fanfare.
Yet, the fight is not over. Equal rights for all is the aim of this game, not just in the military, but across the board – in marriage, the workplace, schools and universities. Discrimination affects everyone, and while it continues to exist, there is no cause for real celebration.

Whilst researching this piece, something else came to mind. I suspect another reason for the quiet acceptance of this historical event is the continuing bigotry within the community. Many people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender still question whether gays should actually be allowed into the military.

There was an article in the Florida Agenda before I became its editor about perceptions of the community towards stereotypical gay men and women within certain job roles and the reality of whether the community would even accept them – let alone society as a whole. For instance, would you hire an overly effeminate lawyer to defend you in court? Would you hire a masculine woman to groom you? Like it or not, prejudice towards capability is as rife within the community as it is outside of it.

That said, go further and ask yourself whether you have thought what so many others do, and have yet to say? What do I mean? Well, military porn, hot sailors, the gay old Navy. You with me yet? Do you want a man in the military who is concentrating more on the package or emotions of his bunk buddy over his desire to protect his country? Remember the parodies of gays in the military where there is one guy who claims he can’t shoot the enemy, because he is too cute? Granted, that is extreme, but the thought is there.

Could you actually stand up against a movement with that as an excuse? Well, it has been one since WWI!

So perhaps the simple reason that there is no fanfare and no big gay parade is because this law that we all know should not be in place is one that we don’t all feel involved in and would rather just let it pass. Yet don’t forget a quiet victory is still a step in the right direction for the big picture of equality for all.

Alex Vaughn is the Editor-in-Chief of the Florida Agenda. He can be reached at editor@FloridaAgenda.com