TMD Home

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and Same Sex Marriage

(November 21, 2006)

Massachusetts representative, Martin T. Meehan says he plans to target the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that the Clinton administration shepherd into place thirteen years ago. In case you missed it, gays’ right to serve in the military was an integral part of Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign. But when in office and after a protracted battle, Clinton was forced to settle for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Meaning that if you were gay, you had to shut up and quietly serve, if you opened your mouth or were outted, you were ousted from the military. In essence, Clinton had fought the good fight, but the net result, besides rhetoric and heart, was perhaps the acknowledgement that there were gays and lesbians in the military.

The military has traditionally been a very man’s man universe, where bravery and bravado have been the metric for centuries. Times changes and government institutions need to bend or risk breaking. Let gays serve, but perhaps maintain the essence of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Make it a policy without penalty and stretch it across all troops, a general advisory to not bear forth non obvious personal information that could be divisive. Besides sexuality, facets like religion and political belief could be fall under such an umbrella. Of course in recreational groups or casual banter amongst squad mates, such matters are bound to come up. So perhaps some sensitivity training may be needed to stem any sudden impact.

A soldier should simply be judged on their ability to serve their country. There’s no doubt in my mind that a gay soldier can fight and die for their country just as well as a straight one. And with the military desperately needing recruits, why dismiss a ready made resource? It’s not as if the Village People are going to show up down at the local recruiting office. It’s time for the military and this country to address the issue and move on; there are larger issues at hand.

…and in our fair state of Massachusetts

Governor Mitt Romney is trying to get the Supreme Justice Court to override the state legislature to allow a referendum vote on same sex marriage. Romney, a conservative Republican with presidential aspirations, opposes same sex marriage and believes that a referendum vote by the people would kill same sex marriage in the state of Massachusetts. He’s banking on the state’s broad Catholic base, blue bloods and conservatives to outweigh progressives, gays and liberals.

Romney’s appeal to the SJC has a zing of irony to it, because it was the SJC in 2003 that declared same sex marriage legal.

Why the state legislature is stonewalling the vote to ratify the referendum is unclear. By law they are supposed to vote on such issues put before them. Perhaps they’re spinning time until Deval Patrick steps into the governor’s office, hoping somehow the issue will just go away. The reality however, is that the issue’s such a political hot potato nobody on Beacon Hill wants their name stuck to it by an official vote. One way or the other, the public record of how they voted could come back to haunt them the next time they run for office.

Here’s what should happen, Romney should get his way. Not because I agree with him on same sex marriage, but to let the people of the Commonwealth vote on the matter once and for all. Put it to rest. Make same sex marriage something endorsed by the people, not just a legal ruling held over the masses by the few who sit on the SJC bench. By the time vote comes down in 2008, there will be plenty debate and lobbying, as there should be. It’s healthy and all part of the process. At times it will be heated for sure, but in the end, it will be close, and I venture to say that there are those out there who initially opposed same sex marriage, but now, after living with it for three years, realize it’s not that big of a deal. They will be the edge that will underscore the SJC’s decision and remove the issue from the political tennis court.

- TBM

Home or Back to Archive