Because Derek Morado was not recommended for discharge many people miss the point of the true cause for outrage: he never should have been dragged into a disciplinary hearing in the first place. He never did anything wrong.
What he did was post a picture on his myspace page. What possible goal could it be serving to continue to "investigate" and hold hearings for people for such "offenses?"
I get the sense that many people don't understand the truly brutal and invasive, and outrageous behavior the Department of Defense has historically engaged in to rote out the gays. I've read and studied extensively. I also have a personal anecdote to share that squares exactly with what I've read. It's about my friend Edgar.
My Friend Edgar
I knew that my friend Edgar had served and like Derek, it was in the Navy, he had been subjected to a DADT investigation and spared discharge. And not too terribly long ago, he's still a pup of 25. So, Edgar's experience happened just a few years ago in California. One evening I asked him to discuss it with me.
Edgar came under investigation when a confidence was betrayed. He had confided he was gay to a colleague, who he believed to be a friend. And she maintained his secret for awhile. But then she got transferred from their base in California to a foreign post. And on her way out the door, she reported to her superiors she knew Edgar and several others were gay. Edgar wasn't able to guess why she decided to do that, though it clearly hurt him.
Edgar told me of being called into a hearing like Derek had. He was shocked to see they had a file folder indicating he'd been under surveillance on his free time. They had dates, times and places of where he'd been, and names of the people he'd been with. And they were amazingly accurate.
I have always known Edgar to be a sunny and happy person. But his demeanor darkened so when he discussed this I scarcely recognized him. His eyes welled up when he spoke. The panel investigating him were his friends, or so he felt. He felt close to his CO too. It was just unbelievable to him that after years of service, with an excellent record, where he thought he enjoyed the appreciation and respect of his colleagues, they'd been trailing him, like a criminal.
Edgar loved his job. He loved serving, his eyes lit up when he talked about the work he did. He received many commendations and had been honored in some sort of "Sailor of the month" at his base. He wasn't recommended for discharge in the end, but he didn't sign up for a third tour as he planned. Like many LGBT veterans I talk to, the struggle of living under the policy was just too great. For Edgar, the experience of being investigated just ruined the service for him. A sense of camaraderie and, yes, unit cohesion, had been ruined forever for him.
Why People Don't Understand The Truth
It's understandable, that people are ignorant of the real application of the DADT policy. The mainstream media has for years, largely bought into the idea that ejecting gays was an appropriate and lawful thing for the military to be doing, so there was no reason to question how the Department of Defense went about doing it. Besides, there were always just so many more important things to report on.
(Lindsey Lohan: In rehab again!)
Though the information is well documented and readily available, in general, the media are not interested in conveying it to the public. The ugly truth is most often explored only in court documents, or by LGBT advocacy groups or in long scholarly tomes like Randy Shilts' Conduct Unbecoming.
One such examination ran in the fall of 1995 in The University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review. C. Dixon Osburn, currently director of Human Rights First, took a look at possible Equal Protection violations in the newly enacted DADT law. (Osburn is still writing on human rights, see his postings on torture and Guantanamo Bay here.) The 1995 article is still available on Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's website: A Policy in Desperate Search of a Rationale: The Military's Policy on Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals [PDF]. Included are two case studies of DADT investigations, the rational for including them is thus:
These stories are only two of the hundreds under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,
Don’t Pursue.” The stories suggest that the U.S. military is insincere when it claims that the new policy is a “step forward” and “sexual orientation is not a bar to military service.” More profoundly, these stories and the hundreds of violations cited by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network show that no policy that encourages witch hunts, fishing expeditions or other forms of retribution against servicemembers solely for their sexual orientation will reinforce discipline, good order or morale.
LGBT advocates are well aware of the long history of insincerity and disingenuous claims regarding the actual practice of DADT. We've seen the wide gulf between how they claim to apply it and how it actually is applied. This is not a new concept. It's actually the basis for striking down segregated schooling in
Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court's decision hinged on the vast difference between the stated policy on paper, and how it actually manifests in practice. Thus the conclusion was the policy itself could not stand.
We all had a good laugh when John McCain had a meltdown six months ago, saying "That's not the policy." And we can be glad we've come to a place where the credibility of such claims are seen by the majority as laughable.
But it also doesn't matter if it's Senator John McCain or Defense Secretary Gates who are making claims that deny the reality of what's really happens in a DADT investigation. So, if once again, repeal advocates are assured there is a new kinder, gentler policy, that third party and anonymous outings are a thing of the past, it can be perfectly reasonable for the LGBT community to be skeptical, whatever the source.
And a close examination of Derek Morado's case shows that indeed, his outing resulted from anonymous tip. Sure, the tip was relayed before the "new regulations" were enacted, but this begs the question, how many such cases are still in the hopper? And what possible motive could exist to follow through on them at this point and time? Why can investigations and hearing not just be halted?
I include the case studies as they are illuminating to those who are unaware of how an investigation can play out.
Case #1: Craig Haack
In the Spring of 1994, Craig Haack, a twenty-two year-old, young man from Portland, Oregon, was coming to the end of his tour of duty as a Marine Corporal in Okinawa, Japan.249 Early one evening, however, without any warning, military investigators came to his barracks room and announced, so that all of his co-workers could hear, that Haack was under investigation for homosexuality. In direct violation of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” policy, they proceeded to tear his room apart for nearly two hours, looking for any evidence of homosexual conduct. The military investigators found and read Haack’s personal diary and personal correspondence in front of him. They seized his word processor, his computer disks, all of his photos of friends and family, and even a pair of 1970’s style platform shoes, saying that they were somehow evidence of homosexual conduct. The next day, the tires on Haack’s car were slashed.
Over the course of the next several weeks, in direct violation of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” policy, military investigators questioned at least twenty-one Marines about Haack and others, asking whether any of those named had demonstrated “homosexual proclivities.” When questioned himself, Haack refused to cave in. As a result, Haack was detained beyond his tour of duty and threatened with adverse action because he did not cooperate and provide the information sought by the investigators.
Only after months of intensive outside intervention by the Servicemembers ~Legal Defense Network in Washington, D.C., the New York-based firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and Congressional inquiries, did the U.S. Marine Corp finally relent and allow Corporal Haack to end his tour of duty. The Department of Defense has yet to discipline any military individual responsible for violating the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don't.
Case #2: Kevin Blaesing
Corporal Kevin Blaesing was stationed with the U.S. Marine Corps Security Force Company in Charleston, South Carolina. Corporal Blaesing is an exemplary young man, having excelled at every post where he has served. Among other awards and honors, he had been named Marine of the Month and Marine of the Quarter for his unit.
In May 1994, Corporal Blaesing went to a military base psychologist because of stress. During the course of the private, confidential counseling session he asked questions about his sexual orientation. He thought that his questions would remain private and be held in confidence. They were not.
The psychologist turned Blaesing into his commanding officer. Corporal Blaesing’s first Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Ronald Rueger, was great and did what he was supposed to do—nothing. He said, “I felt the young fella gave us really good service . . . and deserved to go all the way through” his term of service.269 But Lieutenant Colonel Rueger retired and the new Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel M.J. Martinson, pressured Blaesing to quit. When Blaesing refused to leave “voluntarily,” Martinson ordered the military attorneys, against their advice, and in direct violation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue,” to initiate discharge proceedings against Corporal Blaesing, using as the sole basis for discharge the questions Corporal Blaesing had raised with his base psychologist.’ A board of Marine Corps officers voted, two to one, to discharge him.
The board recommendation demonstrates that, left to its own devices, the military will pursue and “ferret out” all servicemembers even remotely suspected of being gay. Corporal Blaesing never stated that he was gay. Even the military psychologist, the government’s key witness, stated at the discharge board that she did not know whether or not Corporal Blaesing was gay.
Again, only after intense intervention by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a private attorney from South Carolina, and Congressional inquiries, was the recommended discharge action overturned. The Department of Defense, however, disciplined no one for the violations of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue,” and again effectively signaled that it was acceptable to target servicemembers who are, or are suspected of being, lesbian, gay or bisexual for persecution and discharge.
My advocacy has always stemmed from a desire to see my fellow LGB citizens be spared this harassment and bullying and the constant strain of living in fear. Regardless of what paper was signed on December 22, 2010, it is clear, the harassment continues.
And to what possible end? Assurances that discharges will not occur only highlight the inherent cruelty of threatening soldiers like Derek Morado with discharge and putting them through an invasive investigation process that we are to be assured is ultimately pointless legal pageantry.
Put yourself, for a moment in Edgar's shoes. Imagine what it would feel like to know you'd been followed on your free time by your boss, that someone was taking notes on your comings and goings.
Or Derek's, to know you'd been summoned to a disciplinary hearing. A hearing where you would stand before your superiors and be quizzed about the details of your personal, private life, things in no way germane to your job performance. As the hearing approaches, you know that six years you've invested in a military career are going to come down to how a panel of three votes whether it can continue or not. How will they decide? The standards of what constitutes "too gay to serve" have always been capricious and arbitrary. You are left hoping your panel of three is not stacked with homophobes who are still, apparently, empowered to end your career.
To say nothing that during the investigation process Derek was pulled from his bomb making duties and re-tasked to managing barracks. The long-term effect on his future career prospects is real as well. His record will show he was taken from a skilled technical job, and moved to more menial work. Regardless of how he attempts to explain it, it won't be a recommend when he applies for a promotion.
Certainly there's a lot of good news on the DADT front, no doubt at all. But we're not done and this matters a great deal to real people. We need to bring it home, we need to end the continued investigations and discharges. And it's frankly, just baffling that they should still be going on.
Why is it so hard to just suspend the hearings and investigations? As one poster says, "Who knew it was so hard to not fire gay people?" Or as PhilJD posted in a comment recently:
Right. The President has the authority to obliterate half of Libya, but is far too weak to do anything at all to ensure that one American sailor who kissed a guy can stay in the fucking navy.
Why, indeed.