Surefire controversy!

Let's talk Don't Ask, Don't Tell a bit.  I have served in all-male light infantry and motorized line infantry units, co-ed training units, and co-ed staff units.  I went to the Military Academy, which is a co-ed institution with approximately 17% of the student body being female.  My experience is wide enough that I have a fairly good idea of what goes on in the Army and can therefore comment on some impacts of the policy popularly known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).  

First, let's posit a few things.  

1. Any policy affecting or regulating the military ought to be crafted with the explicit aim of enhancing the capability of the armed forces.  I hope this is apparent.  If you disagree with me on this, then stop reading and go do something else. 

2. Military capability is a function of the total equipment, personnel, and leadership/organizational activity of the military.  It means the ability to deliver the right force to the right target in the right place at the right time.  

3. There are trade-offs inherent in every policy.  To make an analogy, a pawn may move two spaces forward, which is an advance, but the trade-off is that it loses control of the squares it has passed.  

Ok, great.  Now we are on the same page.  So let's address some points about DADT.  

The first is a pretty big one that most people seem to miss.  DADT does NOT PREVENT gays from serving in the military. 

Let me say that again because it is an important point.

DADT does NOT PREVENT gays from serving in the military. 

What it prevents is gays from OPENLY serving in the military.  What does that mean?  That means engaging openly in gay behavior.  The line is a little ambiguous, but public displays of affection such as kissing, or getting caught in flagrante are sufficient to open an investigation into the behavior.  

But nothing in the policy prevents gay servicemembers from serving, provided they do not publish their orientation to the world to see.  And that's the rub.  There could be a couple of infantrymen, gay as can be, serving in a line unit, and, for example, living in their own off-post house, doing whatever they wanted to do.  And there's nothing the Army could do about it.  All that would be required is that they not make out in the barracks in front of their soldiers.  

So, you say, the policy is still discriminatory.  Well, yes, yes it is.  But let's go back to our propositions:  Looking at #1, would repealing DADT enhance military capability?  I don't think so, and here's why. 

1) Gays are already allowed to serve in the military; those who want to can, and therefore the military is not losing a valuable source of manpower.  The best (and only, as far as I am concerned) arguments for allowing blacks, women, and etc into the army and integrated units concern the usage of the whole population of the US in military endeavors.  

Fairness, taking into account peoples' desire to serve, etc., should have nothing to do with whether they are allowed to serve.  To make the point:  If a paraplegic wants to serve in the infantry, do we let him?  If he is a superior strategic genius, then maybe he should be made a general.  However, he is incapable of doing common Infantry tasks.  Women (~50% of the population) and minorities (~30% of the population) give valuable contributions to the military, and so the integration effort was well-aimed and well-implemented, despite the negative effects that we do see in co-ed units from a high-percentage male population interacting with a low-percentage female population, especially given the framework of the rank system.  There is no such argument for repealing DADT, because gays (2-3% of the population) are already allowed in the military.  Repealing DADT would be an exercise in enhancing gay self-esteem, not military readiness.  Consequently, the negative effects that we can anticipate--to unit readiness and morale-- are NOT outweighed by the benefits.   

Because it would not be a beneficial policy, I am forced to conclude that the campaign to repeal DADT is not based so much on "gay rights" as it is on "I'm Gay, Look At Me!" In short, it is about the individual's freedom to do what you want.  Freedom is great-- I am a huge fan of it.  And I am leaving the military so I can do what I want.  There are tradeoffs (see my #3 above) to every decision.  The military demands some degree of conformity.  If you can't handle it, don't join-- you know what you're getting into when you sign up.  However, DADT-repeal proponents would rather force an institution to change for a few individuals' lifestyle preferences than recognize that what they are doing is not in the best interest of the military.  

We then have a branch.  Would DADT repeal be detrimental to the military?  I don't know for sure.  I can say that with the coming confluence of gay marriage and military benefits, I would bet a month's paycheck that with those policies in place, most of my all-male infantry platoon would have gotten "married" to be allowed to use off-post housing and get BAH.  I can't say that my platoon would be significantly degraded by this, but I think getting my soldiers in formation in the morning would be a lot more difficult, and I would see a lot more legal problems coming out of Animal-House style quarters.  I could be wrong, but that's where I would see things going.

I would also guess that living quarters for military service members in general would be dramatically reconfigured.  There would no longer be ANY justification for segregating housing by sex.

Read that again, and think about it.  It's absolutely correct.  What is the justification for segregating housing by sex now?  Privacy?  Sexual harassment cases?  When DADT goes, housing segregation by sex will (logically, but the army doesn't always follow logic) go too.  As a result, service-members will have to have each of their own rooms.  This is great for the servicemembers and I am all in favor of it generally, but not for the cause celebre of some individuals. 

You will notice that I haven't addressed the morale., etc,. of the people in the units.  That is intentional.  My platoons could probably be assessed as homophobic, but I am not sure how much of that was peer-pressure induced and how much of it was genuinely being bothered by gays.  I don't think integrating gays into the units themselves would be a problem unless you had gay romances going on.  That is a problem in male-female integrated units as well, and can have a significant detrimental effect on unit readiness.  It goes to a lot of fraternization issues.  If those could be avoided (which I don't think is entirely realistic) then there wouldn't be a big problem. 

However, let me make a point here:  forcing people to change their beliefs for the sake of forcing them to change is egotistical and wrong.  If there is an injustice going on, fine.  But to label a group of people ("the military") as being mentally deficient and requiring them to adjust to accommodate a relative few individuals is not the best use of the military's already poorly-managed time and energy.  There are already copious opportunities (mandates) for quarterly and yearly training on suicide, sexual harassment, equal opportunity, and so forth.  I got more time in EO classes in my training at Fort Riley than I did training on IVs or calling MEDEVAC.  Just sayin'.

Although to be fair I suppose I am at more risk of an EO complaint here on staff than I am of getting blown up.  But if I'd gone to Afghanistan, then I'd have a real point.  

Are we willing to accept the upheaval that repealing DADT will cause?  I personally don't think there's a point to it.  We should go with my marriage policy, and DADT in place.

Feedback is welcome, as are additional facts or commentary.  

Can't we all get along? Hetero Marriage, Gay Marriage, the State, and You

 This post addresses one of the cases for gay marriage and develops some rational solutions to the issue dilemma.

To start with, a little background reading:  http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957.  This presents a cogent argument for the legal approval of gay marriage.  To summarize the author's argument:

1.  The state recognizes (heterosexual) marriage as a citizen's right
2.  The state ought not deny rights to citizens
3. Gays are citizens, too
4. Therefore, the state ought not deny what it has recognized as a citizen's right (marriage) to a class of citizen

This is a valid argument in its current form.  If, after all, marriage is "a relationship recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the state's support and benefits", and "It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity", then what's the fuss about?  Surely lawmakers ought, barring electoral, (i.e. employment) considerations, to extend that legal right to our gay brethren without any repercussions.  So what's the fuss?  Rather, what should we do about the fuss?

The author states that, as noted above, marriage is an expression of a desire to create a "social partnership".  He uses the implicit assumption that the government should be able to legitimize and incentivize marriage as a social partnership.  Now, in all of this, he barely mentions the impacts of marriage and family on the raising of children, or even the state's interest in sanctioning marriage; he makes his points on equality under the law and social partnerships.  Given his framework, he is correct; however, if we look at his view on the purpose of marriage and revise it, then we begin to see other avenues of approach for policy.  His legal argument and logic is impeccable, and I have no doubt that his prognostication of the future of gay marriage in the US is accurate.  Before that happens though, we ought to re-look at how we got into this argument in the first place.

Let's consider marriage, or more particularly, why marriage exists; then, we can move on to considering the state's role in marriage.

We can view marriage through multiple facets.  Currently, there is a point of view--which the author articulates--that marriage is about building a relationship between two people.  Another is that marriage is an economic exchange between a man and a woman; the man exchanges his excess labor capacity for a woman's reproductive capability, i.e. having children and a family, which he cannot do on his own.  A variant on this is that marriage is a framework for raising children.  Still another reason, and not so common anymore in the US, is that marriage is a political and economic tool for parents and families to build influence and wealth.  That summarizes the key reasons for the institution of marriage.  The strongest case for marriage as an institution is a combination of points one and two above--namely, that marriage is a tool for formalizing a social relationship between two people, and that it provides a stable framework for the production and maintenance of children.

Where, considering those reasons for the institution, does the state's interest in recognizing and privileging marriage lie?

I submit that the state's interest lies in the "production and maintenance of children" area.  A nation's citizenry, in quality and quantity, is its strength.  To maintain a competitive edge, a state needs to encourage a positive birthrate--witness the coming "ageing" disaster in Europe, and again here--which has profound implications for demographic makeup, economic/scientific/industrial performance, financial stability, and political outlook.  (Note: Understood, Europe is not going to disappear, or become all old people, but having an aging population and a welfare state puts considerable strain on social programs, crowds out younger workplace involvement, and etc.  This is a complex topic which I am not going to address here in depth because it touches on a whole mess of areas.)

In addition to a positive birthrate, a state should encourage people to couple-up and raise the children to become productive members of society.  This reinforces laws and social customs, both of which are vital to a state's welfare.  Having two parents raise children is the ideal situation.  It happens with one parent, I am aware, but remember: we are describing what behaviors the state should encourage.  There is little evidence that single-parenthood is a behavior that the state should encourage.

In counterpoint to the considerations above, the state should have no role in straightforward social relationships.  The government has no material interest in two individuals'  "desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens... and to form a lasting bond and a social identity."  I can do all of those things or not, and it has no effect on the greater welfare except perhaps on happiness surveys.  Whether I raise a child, on the other hand, does have an effect on the greater welfare, particularly in aggregate.

Now, when the government does accept the premise that it has a place in formalizing "social partnerships", then gay marriage follows seamlessly.  However, the government has no mandate, legal or otherwise, to do so.  There is absolutely no need for government to regulate and/or encourage social relationships in the first place.

This leaves the business of child-bearing and child-rearing as the government's only stake in the marriage business.  The implicit assumption behind traditional marriage is that married couples have children.  This has been true for a very long time.  While not all married couples have children, the defining characteristic of marriage as a "social partnership" was that a man and woman got married for children and property.  When couples did not have children, this was accepted as inefficiencies or wastage in the institution due to the "human factor".  Only relatively recently has marriage become about self-actualization.  Now, putting off having children or not having children at all is not seen as detrimental to the institution; but why should it be, when the institution is a "social partnership"?  The popular perception of marriage in the West has changed dramatically from its beginnings.

This does not change the fact that the only interest that the government has in marriage is the child-bearing and -rearing business.  This is the only area where government should apply incentives to encourage a specific set of behavior, namely producing and raising kids.

To do this, the government should cease recognizing, certifying, or otherwise regulating ALL marriages. It should stop offering tax breaks or special tax situations to married couples.  It should leave the business of who gets "married" up to individuals and their religious institutions.

What government ought to do is incentivize the behaviors it has an interest in--making and raising babies, independent of marital status.  If it is going to offer incentives, it ought to offer dependent-based incentives, such as tax credits and/or other benefits programs, for couples raising children.  These benefits would apply regardless of gender, age, or whatever.  While there is some dispute over the effects of being raised by gay couples on children, if a gay couple wants to adopt and raise a child, there should be minimal objection to government encouragement of this behavior.  It meets the criteria for government interest and societal well-being.

This solution would be fair, across the board.  It would allow individuals to make their own lifestyle choices independent of others' particular judgments.  It would get the government out of social relationships and into managing the country's future welfare.  It would de-link government from a personal, religious practice, and align it instead with demographics.  It would re-empower religious and social institutions to define marriage and live within that definition.  People are well capable of marrying without a local magistrate's registration of approval.

Further, a "dependent-keeper" status would most likely completely re-arrange current legal marriage laws.  It would require a re-thinking of issues currently assigned to divorce law such as child custody.  Alimony would probably disappear under this framework, unless there was a separate set of child-bearing/rearing laws explicitly targeted towards mothers and housewives (or the gay equivalent).  It would also nullify a hot-button issue by removing marriage as a state-conferred privilege from the table, and there would be no question about equality under the law.

This seems to me to be the best way to address marriage as a whole from a social and societal perspective.  I am not certain whether this would be marriage-rate neutral, but it seems to me that it would.  The only things it ought to affect are birthrates and family makeup percentages.