Tried to run
Tried to hide
Break on through
to the other side
--Break on Through, The Doors
Well I'm not the world's most physical guy
But when she squeezed me tight
she nearly broke my spine
Oh my Lola, lo-lo-lo-lo Lola
--Lola, The kinks
All men are created equal
Unit cohesion and morale issues are the usual arguments given for banning gays in the military, but those who take that position never explain how forcing gays to serve while in the closet improves unit cohesion.
Ranger doubts that unit cohesion is even relevant as the concept is unquantifiable, and the argument is usually delivered in an emotional, knee-jerk fashion. Surely open service would be less detrimental to morale than open-ended wars absent identifiable objectives.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell will eventually be repealed, and the military must accept this fact. However, the typical soldierly passive-aggression will reign, and the military will stonewall any gay that identifies himself as such. This comment applies primarily to the males, as lesbian personnel have always been accepted as long as they were buff and gruff, and acted like men.
Open gay service has always been the prerogative of females; the problem has been in accepting the males. It is doubtful that most gay male soldiers can even be identified as such since gays gravitating to the military will seldom be the swishy-type. Yet these are the gays that scare the chain of command.
Nobody cares about the leather-dominant gays since these personnel will present as het males. However, there is a weakness in the male psyche that feels threatened in the face of its anima. Why would a man secure in his masculinity be threatened by a gay man
Further, why do those men often behave threatened by Ranger, who is not gay and has done the "manly things"? Why are they angered by his defense of gays?
Men are afraid their status as man would be diminished if a gay were to also perform at the same level. To be a Ranger or Special Forces is to be apart from the gender-integrated Army. It is the last bastion of masculinity in any aspect of our society.
Even if a gay soldier performs at the extremities of manhood -- more extreme than being, say, a pro football player -- his alternate sexual orientation would not be accepted. Why, when that man is performing the very same tasks as his hetero brothers? One's sexual orientation should be constitutionally protected as a right of privacy.
Even when DADT is repealed, it would be detrimental for any male in the combat arms to declare an alternate sexual orientation as the threat of less than superior EER's and OER's would loom. These would be oblique attacks that are the classic career-killers.
Can one believe that a DA promotion board would select an openly serving gay as a CSM or General Officer? DADT can be rescinded, but the institutional Army mindset will persevere.
It will be the same as when blacks were integrated into the Army by Executive Order. It took many years for a black to be promoted to General Officer. Did any black oficers win a CMH [MOH] in the Korean War? The first black West Point grad (Flipper) was drummed out of the service on trumped-up charges. The same will be the fate of gay men proclaiming their sexuality; the Army knows how to drag its feet when faced with an unpopular policy, regardless of congressional dictate.
Gays seeking a career in the Army would be well-advised to "don't tell", even when legislation deletes DADT. Regulations will not change attitudes.
For that, a societal shift in necessary. Until we integrate all members, there will always be a fracture line.