Live Q&As

Thanks for your question.  I don't have the Marine specific data on that question, and as you can imagine, it would be hard to get right now.  That said, it is estimated that there are about 65,000 or so gay members currently serving in the U.S. armed forces.

This is the one on a generational gap: Great question. It?s harder to generalize about personal opinion that it is, frankly, culture. We know from lots of public opinion polling that there is a generational gap in the general public. Although that is also probably reflected in the Armed Services writ large, there has been a huge shift in both the public and military opinion since DADT was put in place in 1993. A recent WSJ article gave a jump of at least 10% points in both the general public and military opinion, with clear majorities of both now favoring gays being allowed to openly serve. Here?s why I?m reticent to generalize about generations: Adm Mike Mullen?s beautiful testimony to Congress this year when he supported the repeal. In other words, it?s important to keep in mind that 7 in 10 people in the military from the survey about to be released said that repealing DADT will not be a problem. And that undoubtedly includes all generations.

I actually do talk about that and other ?thorny issues? in a book chapter that is available here:  The book also includes chapters by those who do not support repealing DADT.

Very good point. In the book chapter I just referenced, I did look at desegregation. As I stress there, one can hide sexual preference - one can't hide race, so the examples are not analogous, but the arguments used against African Americans serving are strikingly similar to those that were used against African Americans.

There are several questions about leaving out the USMC altogether from the repeal, or the combat arms. I think that would be a terrible mistake. Separate is never equal, and although many point to there not being a right to join the Armed Forces, I look at it a different way: The are responsibilities to protect the body politic. For the life of me, I cannot imagine that our professional forces will not be able to do what 26 other countries have done.

 Very true, and very relevant point. Extremists on both sides are going to use the numbers that come out of the report to justify their position. I look at it exactly like you do: 60% do not see that the repeal of DADT will have any negative effect. We should all keep that in mind. I am not a member of the Armed Services and did not take the survey. I think we all owe it to listen to those who did.

Thanks for your service, Marine. And I couldn't agree with you more. So maybe there is something to a generational shift as an earlier reader pointed out?

Great question. I think it means different things to different people. To me, it means that if someone asks me directly about my personal life, I no longer lie about it and create a husband or boyfriend that doesn't exist. I teach at Georgetown as well, and this almost never comes up in my class there or at the Marine Corps. An exception was when my partner had a baby and I was in the hospital with her. I had to take leave, and the students were told that I had a baby. Puzzled at first (I didn't look pregnant), they soon understood. And gave me warm congrats. Thanks for the honest question.

The Marines have always done exceptionally well at meeting their numbers, in part because they are, well, the Marines. I disagree that the Marines have a "open gays not allowed" sign. As another reader pointed out, 60% of the USMC doesn't care one way or the other.

Thank you for your service, Pastor. As the daughter of evangelicals, I have struggled to make peace with my God and myself for most of my life. I own several Bibles, and read them to help me in my daily life. I cannot imagine that this would be an issue, especially since Jesus never talks about homosexuality. I truly hope that it does not become an issue. Again, thanks for your service and the question.

Almost all of the Marines to whom I've spoken about this issue assure me that they will follow orders if the law is changed. I believe we have the most professional forces in the world, and that they will do so. Thanks for the question.

Great point that I tried to make in the piece. We are at war. I truly do not think that there will be an Exodus if DADT is repealed, however. Take Canada and Britain - they thought that there would be (opponents said the sky would fall, thousands would leave, etc.; just like here). Only a handful of servicemembers left that they could trace back to gays serving openly. There's a big difference between filling in a bubble on an on-line survey that you'll leave, and actually doing so, with all that entails (retirement issues, etc.).

Let me start by saying I love NE. That's where my grandparents and aunts/uncles lived, so that's where family vacations were. On your question, I actually think civilians have a critical role to play in teaching GRAND strategy (this is different than military strategy), and that both civilian and military personnel can learn quite a bit from one another. I would not presume to teach any military person about tactics, techniques, and procedures on the ground - how to conduct an ambush, etc. Where I can be useful is in helping bring officers to the strategic level that looks at the entire nation's ends, ways, and means to accomplish national security objectives. In the new wars we find ourselves today, a "whole of government" approach is necessary. That includes ALL of the U.S. government - civilian and military alike.

Interesting question. I have been with my partner for seven years and we have two beautiful children. I have brought them to office parties. Thus far, I have not brought them to faculty/student events, mostly because the 2 year old is a terror and cannot be trusted around nice things.

DADT does not apply to civilian employees - strictly military. Thanks for the question.

Ah, Senator John McCain. I think the first part of the answer to this is "which Senator McCain?" He has flip flopped a lot on this issue. At one point, he said he wanted to hear from the military on this issue. When at least part of the military (the Chairman, and the 70% in the survey) gave him the answer that he didn't think would serve his base, he attacked them. I miss the John McCain who would take stands and stick to them instead of the one who puts his finger in the winds to gauge the loudest opinions and tries to make headlines.

Thanks for the question, but I respectfully disagree that what's going on is dishonorable. As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commandant has a right to express his opinion on Title X (train, org, equip) issues. Now, if the law changes and we still have this public dissent, then we are looking at a civilian-military issue.

I will qualify this answer by saying that I haven't studied this particular issue in depth, but I think that the logic collapses on itself when you think about it: As one reader wrote, he was quite confident that a straight Marine (or three) could protect themselves from advances that some are sure will come. As another Marine told me: I think it's funny how every straight guy thinks he's so good looking that a gay guy will automatically come on to him. Just repeating what I heard on that one.

I absolutely agree with you, sir. I can hide who I am at any given moment. It's not the same thing. What troubled me is how similar the arguments that are used in both cases were.

There is a lot of lost cost for the US government, not to mention talent. Go to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (http://www.sldn.org/) for some numbers on this issue.

What I have been told by many Marines is they fear the foxhole scenario - being in combat, and close quarters, with a gay Marine (by the way, some of them already are and don't know it). What I have also been told by many Marines is that a foxhole is probably the least erotic place on earth. As Senator Barry Goldwater said (I'll paraphrase), I don't care if you are straight, I just care if you shoot straight.

Absolutely. You said it better than I could. And I think that SHOULD be part of the argument. There are already thousands of gay Marines serving who have proved that he/she is one of the few, the proud. They are not gay Marines. They are simply Marines.

LtCol Howard, thank you and your family so much for your service. In my book chapter, I reference some lessons from history that might point to the way forward for the USMC, as well as the rest of DoD. First, keep it simple, stupid (KISS; I get the irony). Make a simple, clear policy. Rather than devise all new standards for homosexuals, the same rules should apply to everyone. The military already has a code of conduct regarding sexuality for heterosexuals: No dating within the chain of command, and officers should not have relations with enlisted forces. Those rules should apply to homosexuals, as well. There should be incentives to promote the new policy, and clear sanctions for those who break the military code of conduct. In terms of implementing the policy, military personnel should be trained on the new law. That training should be targeted to the level of command. For the training, it should be focused on behavior, not beliefs. And the training should be tied to the mission of the Corps, which is one reason that I think the Corps values can actually accommodate this change in policy. Leadership, as I point out in the piece, is critical. There is undoubtedly high ranking gay members of the Corps and other Armed Services. Them coming out and continuing to honorably serve their country would be extremely helpful. But all leaders, straight or gay, can and should lead the way on this issue.