Heterosexuals living in metropolitan America may have come to perceive gay rights as an outdated issue. Gays and lesbians have become widely, even disproportionately, portrayed and celebrated in American television and pop culture.
Most people have family, friends and co-workers who are openly gay, and it has become a common, even trendy, part of daily life. To most of liberal America, gay rights is a non-issue; homophobes are the exception to the rule.
For homosexuals, a distinct line has been drawn between social and cultural acceptance, and legal and political sanctioning.
Civil rights for LGBT people are an ongoing and painfully slow process in the United States. It wasn’t until 2003 that “homosexual conduct” was decriminalized, after the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v Texas found the law was unconstitutional. Prior to this decision, acts of homosexuality like sodomy, even in the privacy of your own home, could result in fines, extensive imprisonment and the denial of other rights like suffrage. Same-sex marriage has not been overly successful either — only five states and one district allow it.
And until last week, gays serving in the military have been required to stay closeted.
Thursday a California federal judge ruled the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the U.S. Armed Forces unconstitutional, and ordered a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the policy pending an appeal by the U.S. Department of Justice.
The DADT policy was originally established in 1993, functioning as President Bill Clinton’s attempt to allow gays to serve their country despite a military policy to discharge homosexual service members. The rationale behind the policy is stated in the U.S. Code for Armed Forces Sec. 654: “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”
But this explanation reflects more on the country’s political tradition than any sort of scientific authority. In fact, many studies suggest the opposite.
The American Psychological Association reported to the House Armed Services Committee in 1993 concerning the DADT policy. Gregory Herek, Ph.D., associate research psychologist at the University of California at Davis, spoke on behalf of APA, saying, “The research data show that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service.”
So what is this “unacceptable risk?”
This is not the United States’ first civil rights movement, and while considering those historic developments, it is never a question of whether it was the right thing to do.
The question is why it was necessary in the first place, and why it was so difficult to achieve. The shame from those eras is something that all Americans must carry in our shared national identity. Now, many people are criticizing the judiciary branch for setting precedent on this issue instead of leaving it up to Congress and President Barack Obama, despite their lethargic progress toward passing legislation to repeal DADT.
In reality, every American should be grateful that headway has been made in atoning for our stains of bigotry, regardless of if it was achieved by politics or law.
What this boils down to is our ability to transcend prejudgments and inequality. When reading the Declaration of Independence, nowhere will you find that all men are created equal except when considering race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Send pithy comments to djoconn1@asu.edu.
