The real reason some oppose lifting DADT

Timothy Kincaid

November 19th, 2010

Those who oppose the repeal of the Military’s anti-gay “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy often couch their objections to open service in terms of ‘what is best for the Military.’ And, to be fair, that may be a primary concern of our Curmudgeon in Chief or other legislators who just can’t fathom that young soldiers are just not as scared of Homosexuals!! in the Showers!! as they are.

But achieving the best Military is of no consequence to those who are leading the public opposition to open service. If irrefutable proof were offered that open service by gay personnel would increase unit cohesion and military effectiveness by 25%, they would still be opposed. Because their chief objection has nothing to do with the military, the fears of other soldiers, or even sensitivity to the religious teachings of chaplains.

No. Their objection is based on the fear that open service would remove the stigma and hostility that is institutionalized by the DADT policy. They don’t care about military policy nearly as much as they do about condemning homosexuality and gay people.

Take, for example, the objections made by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) when asked what his response would be if the military survey showed that soldiers do not have a problem with open service:

I would still have a problem with it because there’s no question to mainstream homosexuality within active duty military would have an impact on unit cohesion would have an impact on recruitment, an impact on readiness, that’s been established and written about and chronicled for many many years and I believe we need to continue to keep the focus of our military on the mission of the military. Don’t ask don’t tell was a compromise back in the early 90s, it’s been a successful compromise we ought to leave it like it is and and not run the risk of impacting the readiness of our military or recruitment for our military because of an effort to advance some liberal domestic social agenda.

Lots of talk about unit cohesion, recruitment, readiness, etc., but that is just cover.

As Pence indicates, he doesn’t care what the report says. He doesn’t care what soldiers think, or whether open service would improve unit cohesion, recruitment, and readiness. All of that is irrelevant to Pence’s position.

Pence’s real opposition is “to mainstream homosexuality.” The rest is mere justifications offered to bolster his real objection, “mainstreaming” homosexuality.

This fear of “mainstreaming” raises its head in the objections that Focus on the Family makes to anti-bullying campaigns. It’s present in debates over insurance for city employees. It shows up when a theme park has a gay day or when a television show creates a lesbian character or when a library includes a book with a plotline that speaks to the life of a gay youth.

Really, Mike Pence isn’t that worried that the military will not be ready for combat if gay people serve. The military isn’t his concern or why he ran for Congress. In fact, this isn’t even because Pence “hates gays” or opposes “the liberal social agenda”, per se.

Rather, Pence is afraid that Americans are rejecting his religion’s views including those about homosexuality and that it is – or soon will be – no longer mainstream thinking to engage in blanket condemnation of others based on their sexual orientation. He is afraid that his religion will further slip in its “moral authority” to declare what is acceptable social conduct and he is seeking to use his power as an elected official to give governmental sanction to his church’s beliefs.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan added this additional thought:

I think many under-estimate the symbolic importance of this to those who believe homosexuality is a sickness or a sin. What we are asking of them is not simply to tolerate reluctantly the fact that some gay people refuse to be ashamed or closeted, but to conflate the symbol of the American soldier with a homosexual. There are very few emblems in American life that carry the weight, power and symbolism of the American soldier, the veteran, the men and women in uniform.

To say that open gay men and women are serving their country in uniform is to say that they are fully citizens. It is this equal citizenship that simply cannot compute with the idea of homosexuality in the minds of a minority of the older generation.

Priya Lynn

November 19th, 2010

I agree completely. If the military repeals DADT it sends the message that gays should be allowed to serve because there is nothing wrong with being gay. To the anti-gays that’s the beginning of the end of their “It’s immoral to be gay” schtick.

Ben in Oakland

November 19th, 2010

“that’s been established and written about and chronicled for many many years and I believe we need to continue to keep the focus of our military on the mission of the military. ”

Hereis indeed the clue to Pence’s “thinking”.

It has certainly been written about. but chroncled and established has not happened yet. In fact, based upon our allies’ experience and the trial of maj. witt, it won’t.


November 19th, 2010

there’s no question to mainstream homosexuality within active duty military would have an impact on unit cohesion … that’s been established and written about and chronicled for many many years

You lie!

The 1993 RAND study, not even the current one, from page 28 (link):

“Unfortunately, opinion on this issue is intuitive or based on anecdote. There is no systematic study of the subject, and no controlled experiments or other research bear directly on this issue.

There is a large body of potentially related empirical research … a significant amount of which was sponsored by the military. … The principal conclusion from an extensive review of this literature is the commonsense observation that it is not necessary to like someone, to work with him or her, so long as members share a commitment to the group’s objectives.”

I suspect that the upcoming report will be even more dismissive.

Indeed, we have had two court decisions, look at all the facts in a highly adversarial format, which concluded that it was the discharge that was disruptive to the unit, not retention of an openly gay servicemember.


November 19th, 2010

sorry for extra comma and a “which” that should be a “that” (no preview or edit features plus a lazy typist at work, I’m afraid).


November 19th, 2010

Maybe I’m more cynical when it comes to politics but I think the real reason is that for both sides it’s a terrific issue to run on, make public statements on, and raise campaign cash on (Is your 4 character PIN at the GayTM DADT or ENDA?)

Rob San Diego

November 19th, 2010

As a major Tea-Bagger, shouldn’t Mike Pence be against the big bad government saying who can and who can’t serve their own country with honor?

Now I thought that the Tea-bag movement was about getting the government out of out lives?

Oh wait, I forgot, if your gay, they think the government has the right to tell us who we can love, who we can be with, and what we can do in the privacy of our own homes.

David C.

November 19th, 2010

Repeal of DADT is indeed a major step in the process of normalizing homosexuality.

Normalization is, irrespective of their publicly stated immediate cause, the fundamental structuring paradigm of the LGBT* civil rights struggle religion beholden political leaders have always attempted to counter by their support of legislation curtailing LGBT* civil rights. It is the reason why so-called “family values” organizations have fought against any legislation that explicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of LGBT* rights—even the right to exist at all.

The entire anti-gay industry lives or dies on whether LGBT* citizens have a right to the same freedoms enjoyed by everyone else. As each of those freedoms are acknowledged and granted, the legitimacy of all arguments against restrictions on LGBT* people increases exponentially and accelerates our acceptance as first class citizens. That day cannot come too soon.


November 19th, 2010

The military somehow survived racial integration in the 1940s. It survived women serving. It seems to have survived a few liberal agendas rather well.

People like Pence have to made to talk on the record about how mainstreaming is their real problem and defending their stance when no particular argument against mainstreaming seems to hold up.

If their reasons for opposition are religious, that might lead to better arguments. But I’m pretty sure that religion is also practically always a cover. In the end they can’t explain themselves even to themselves.


November 19th, 2010

….and yet America voted these haters into office and they soon will begin stripping Gay Americans of all dignity that is left. Let’s be honest here, these types only want to eliminate gay people period based on false religious doctrine. Hate is hate and it is time to take them out.


November 20th, 2010

Replace Pence’s name with John McCain and the article rings just as true.

Paul J. Stein

November 20th, 2010

I am ready to start packing a weapon again. If the current political, legal atmosphere gets any more anti-gay. I have the lives of my family, partner,2 daughters to think about. Police are lax to even investigate anything other than DRUG crime in our area {better federal money available} so you have to sue the local police in civil court to get anywhere. I would have NO PROBLEM taking out ANYONE who thought I would not respond to a “GAY BASHING” Full round of ammo clips for all my friends! WTF did we FORGET about STONEWALL and get lazy!


November 20th, 2010


This is a beautifully written post.

Professor Nathaniel Frank’s _Unfriendly Fire_ (which I assume many BTB readers have read) carefully dissects the canard about “unit cohesion”.

It is no small irony that the main studies on this topic were done on units of Waffen-SS in WW II…and if I remember correctly, those studies concluded that there was possibly a gay tinge to the bonding those soldiers felt. By that logic, open service would ENHANCE unit cohesion.

But as we have seen, facts don’t matter. I congratulate Tim for this deeply insightful post. Pence is glib and some Republicans probably think he is attractive in some way. I am tired of his empty rhetoric, smug manner, and obvious attempt to mimic Ronald Reagan’s mannerisms.

He is the ‘ringing gong’ St. Paul wrote about.

Tony P

November 20th, 2010

Note they always talk about the impact or consequence but they can never really elaborate on what they’ll be. It’s because they really don’t know.

This is also used by NOM when they trot out their protection of children meme and say there will be consequences, like little Johnny in second grade reading the book Prince and Prince. Or finding out that gay people exist and are pretty much everywhere.

We are held out as bogeymen but we all remember that the bogeymen of our youth were all just figments of our imagination and had no basis in reality whatsoever.


November 20th, 2010

Act Now! Send 3 emails:

Email The Whitehouse

Email Congress:

Email Senate:

*IMPORTANT* Be polite and to the point.


November 20th, 2010

DADT was not a compromise. Clinton caved in to the military. As for recruitment being affected. So what? We need more recruits who, when they get out, take their military training to far right hate groups? The recruits Pence wants are at the low end and not the higher end.

Timothy Kincaid

November 20th, 2010

Paul Stein,

We do not advocate violence at this site.

Paul J. Stein

November 20th, 2010

Grow a pair!

Paul J. Stein

November 20th, 2010

Self defense is a basic human right, wake up sister!

Paul J. Stein

November 20th, 2010

I guess this a real EGO TRIP for you Tim , HUH…edit away and skew the results of the views of the followers of this site.


November 21st, 2010

Pence is a dinosaur and his ilk are headed for extinction, they will be gone soon, even in the present bubble of systemic closure. But Timothy please, please, learn how to use an apostrophe? It helps your cause if you write properly.

Timothy Kincaid

November 22nd, 2010


Was your concern with the “it’s” which should only be used as “it is” and never as “belonging to it”?

Yeah, that one slipped by me. It’s now corrected.

Or was there another error?

John B F

November 22nd, 2010

You are so right. What’s awful is that no matter how we respond and prove the obvious truth- the opponents will resort to fantasy, lies and irrational fear to argue they are still right. It’s been going on for so long, and they are getting away with it. Look at NOM- they have NO ( I mean NONE!) valid argument against marriage for all yet they are still here tolerated as a valid ‘voice’ on the issue, a force to be reckoned with, why is this?
PS- I love Bishop Spong’s Manifesto.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.