As members of the military know, a single year will often be packed with changes that most civilians can’t begin to imagine. Deployments, transfers, duty assignments, and even colleagues change for us with a regularity that would make the average person’s head spin. We are conditioned to accept change as a constant, and although we can become accustomed to it, our families often bear the burden of keeping the pace.

From their first Marine Ball together to their White House engagement, Captain Matthew Phelps, USMC, and Ben Schock marry in a private ceremony on May 25, 2013, in Seattle. [Photo: Nate Gowdy/Seattle Gay News]

What made this year different, though, is that it wasn’t just about doing what was right for me anymore. In May 2013, I will marry my partner, Ben. I never imagined that I would find myself in the position to ask someone to move halfway around the world to be with me, but when I received my orders that’s exactly what I did, and he said yes. And as special as Ben is to me, and as wonderful as our lives are together, there is nothing special about our story. Service members go through changes like these all the time, and our families adjust.

The military does its best to make these life-changing transitions easier to bear. Families receive a separation allowance when duty requires the service members to travel without their families. When families are authorized to move with service members, the military pays for travel and moving expenses. Bases often provide job placement services for dislocated spouses. Service members’ housing allowances are adjusted for the cost of supporting their families at new duty stations. Family members receive free healthcare.

When service members are transferred outside the continental United States, even more assistance is provided. Spouses are covered under the same “Status of Forces Agreement” that gives legal protections to service members when they are stationed in foreign countries. The government sponsors spouses and family members to obtain visas as needed for work or school. The government’s goal is to take care of families so that service members aren’t so distracted by family matters as to prevent them from performing their duties at their best.

For families like mine, though, none of these services or benefits are provided. In fact, despite Defense Secretary Hagel’s desire to treat all military spouses and families equally, the military is specifically prohibited from doing so under the Defense of Marriage Act.

Ours is not the only—or even the first—LGBT family to face the challenges that an overseas assignment will bring. We have, however, chosen to let our story serve as a public example of the inequality LGBT families face in the military. Many people see the photos of my engagement to Ben at the White House or see the videos we’ve made and refer to us as activists. We don’t think of ourselves that way. Like most couples, we’re just two people working to build a better life for each other and those around us. We do, however, consider it our duty to be advocates.

As military members, we are expected to make decisions that will support and benefit others, even if doing so comes at great cost. As members of the LGBT community fighting for equality, it’s no different. But while activists have the liberty of aggressively speaking out, regardless of the consequences, as advocates we must carefully weigh the demands of our many obligations—to our country, to our families, and to the service members who will come after us. Sometimes silence is the best—or even the only—decision. Other times, however, it’s not.

The case of my permanent change of station to Okinawa, Japan, is such a case. We must be willing to stand up for what is right when not doing so would hurt our families and our ability to provide for them. By publicly acknowledging our challenges and working to fix them—both from within the military and with organizations like OutServe-SLDN, we will be better able to serve our military and our families. Our nation expects this of us, and deserves nothing less than our best effort.

Our families will continue to be transferred, deployed, and challenged by change that is constant in our service. We must step up, speak out, and do whatever we can for equality. We will never eliminate the hardships we and our families face, but we can—and must—continue to work towards a goal of taking care of our families, so we may serve our country with the focus and dedication that the nation requires of us.

As a Marine, it is my duty to execute lawful orders. As a husband, it is my duty to honor and provide for my family. As an advocate for equality, it is my duty to weigh these two demands and, ultimately, prevent others from having to face the same challenges later.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Benefits and allowances make up an overwhelming majority of military compensation. On average, 70 percent of an active-duty service member’s compensation comes in the form of benefits and allowances, and the remaining 30 percent consists of base pay. For civilians, that percentage is flip-flopped; less than one-third of a civilian’s pay comes in the form of workplace benefits, and wages and salaries make up the remaining 70 percent. Withholding the portion of these benefits that are intended to care for the spouse of a military member inflicts significant financial burdens on military families—even more than civilians—because benefit programs are the primary means to compensate military members for their service.

Military benefit programs equip families to deal with the unique challenges of military life. Without benefit programs, the cost of marrying a service member would be astronomical. For example, active-duty military members are asked to relocate as often as once every two years, and the move can interrupt a military spouse’s education and force spouses to find another job. Benefits programs alleviate the financial burden of relocation by covering the cost of moving the entire family, allowing a service member to transfer education benefits to a spouse and providing spouse employment assistance, none of which are accessible to a military family headed by a same-sex couple. When gay or lesbian service members receive orders for permanent change of station, it spells financial hardship for their families.

Military benefits serve military objectives. A 2012 Pentagon report stated clearly, “Without adequate compensation, the nation would be unable to sustain the all-volunteer force, in the size and with the skill sets needed to support the missions called for in the national security strategy.” Support and benefits programs ensure that the military can recruit and retain the best this country has to offer. It also allows service members to perform at their maximum potential; military members who know their families are taken care of can better focus on the missions at hand, instead of the challenges at home.

Congress never had to consider the impact of DOMA on the military and military families. DOMA as enacted before gays and lesbians could serve in the military and before same-sex marriage was legal anywhere in the United States. So when Congress passed the law, it never had to confront the fact that it would force the military to deny support and benefits to military families headed by same-sex couples. Now that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been repealed, however, that is the current reality, which is unsettling to those at the Pentagon as well as on Capitol Hill.

In the past month alone, members of Congress and the Department of Defense have unequivocally come out in favor of equality for same-sex military spouses. The Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act — a bill that would allow service members in same-sex marriages to obtain military spousal benefits — has been introduced into both chambers of Congress. And outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the Pentagon would extend a number of benefits to same-sex spouses to the extent possible under the law, in addition to stating that it would be the position of the Department to extend the remaining benefits to same-sex military spouses if DOMA were to be repealed.

Getting Americans to understand that DOMA harms military members is a step in the right direction. It is important for them to know that DOMA not only prevents the federal government from recognizing the marriages between two people of the same sex, but it also restricts who can be counted as a spouse for the purposes of the federal government­—including enrollment in military support and benefits programs. Not only does DOMA serve no compelling government interest, but it also undermines some of our most important national interests, our security and our military readiness. The armed services have asked for—and Congress has granted—support and benefit programs to service members because these programs are vital to maintaining the world’s most powerful military. If we are to honor the service of all our military families and maintain the finest fighting force this world has ever known, DOMA must be repealed.

***

By Katie Miller

This past year, the United States hosted the 19th International AIDS Conference for the first time since 1990. Although the United States has established itself as a global leader in HIV/AIDS research and funding, it wasn’t until 2010 that the government lifted the entry ban on HIV positive people wishing to travel to America, thereby making the International AIDS Conference possible in this country. Before then, the United States stood out as one of only a handful of countries worldwide that barred people living with HIV from visiting or immigrating to the country.

ATLANTIC OCEAN (March 5, 2008) Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Michael Ousley draws blood from a patient to test for Human Immuno-deficiency Virus (HIV) during a physical health assessment aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). Theodore Roosevelt is conducting carrier qualifications. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Andrew Skipworth

However, the U.S. military continues its own form of a travel ban. Military policy prohibits HIV-positive service members from being stationed outside the United States. But on Aug. 13 the Pentagon quietly released a revision to the Department of the Navy policy, which now allows HIV-positive Sailors to be stationed at U.S. military installations outside of the country and on select large ship platforms. The policy change, listed under Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 5300.30E, is intended to “reflect current knowledge” of HIV and marks the biggest change in military HIV policy since the late 1980s when mass testing for HIV went into effect. Though the update removes logistical barriers to service, it does nothing to dissolve the space for discrimination which falls under commanders’ discretion. As long as the policy allows good Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to be subjected to the prejudices of their superiors, our mission of equality in the military will be unaccomplished

An Overview of U.S. Military HIV Policies
Although each branch of service maintains its own policies relating to HIV-positive people, the services have several major commonalities. First, all service members are tested for HIV every two years at a minimum, when given overseas assignments and when reservists transition to active duty.

The second commonality concerns enlistment; people with HIV are not eligible for general enlistment or enrollment in officer accession programs. The medical evaluation mandates all potential enlistees be physically and psychologically equipped to survive battlefield conditions. Unsurprisingly, those dependent on prescription medication are unqualified for service, as the military cannot guarantee access to medications in all situations. HIV, which causes immune deficiency, poses an additional risk for potential enlistees because of mandatory live-virus vaccinations administered at basic training, which could be deadly for persons living with the virus. This section of the policy is uncontested.

The third addresses retention of personnel who become HIV positive while serving in the armed forces. When service members are notified of their status, they undergo a separate medical evaluation to determine if they are fit to continue serving. If they wish to remain in the service and the medical evaluations yield positive reviews, they are reassigned to posts near military medical facilities that retain an infectious disease doctor. For those serving overseas, this means relocating to a post within the continental United States. The entire duration of an HIV-positive member’s careers will be spent stateside for the purpose of visiting an infectious disease doctor every three to six months, so OCONUS assignments and deployments are prohibited.

Interestingly, cadets and midshipmen enrolled in officer accession programs are not eligible to continue serving, regardless of physical condition. However, if a cadet or officer candidate is prior service, a return to enlisted status is allowed if his or her contract has not yet ended.

Finally, the military issues “safe sex” orders to personnel with HIV, informing them that they will be criminally prosecuted if they fail to disclose their status to sexual partners or engage in unprotected sex. Similar laws are in effect in a majority of U.S. states, though ranging in extremity.

The Impact on Service Members with HIV
OutServe Magazine interviewed three active-duty, HIV-positive Soldiers and Sailors and an LGBT health professional about military HIV policies and their impact on service members. Names have been changed to protect the identities of the service members.

When asked about the quality of health care they received, the three service members were unanimously positive. Roger, an NCO and moderator of what was previously known as the OutServe HIV Working Group, said, “My care is better in the military than it would be in the civilian world. I don’t have to worry about the cost of medication. It’s mandatory for us to go see the doctor regularly.”

Alex, a junior officer in the Navy, concurred. He expressed considerable praise of the hospital personnel, who offered to reach out to his friends and family to help them learn more about HIV. “I had about seven friends who came in, sat down with someone from the infectious disease clinic, and talked with the staff. The hospital said to me, ‘Alex, if they’re important to you, it’s important that we educate them.’ It was phenomenal.”

But outside of the medical facilities, service members with HIV face a different challenge that military has yet to address: the possible prejudices of their units Because HIV-positive personnel take TDY every three to six months for medical testing, it’s imperative that command be aware of a service member’s ongoing needs.

Alex found himself rather fortunate in this regard. “It would be bad if someone gave me a negative fitness report. I’ve heard horror stories like that, but that hasn’t been my experience. I’ve been met with nothing but understanding from my unit. They’re like, ‘Everyone has medical issues. Take care of yourself. That’s what’s important.’”

Roger also felt lucky to be part of an accepting unit, but realized his experience is not universal. “It’s not going to be like that for everybody. It’s not going to be this good across the board.”

Matthew Rose, formerly of the National Coalition for LGBT Health and friend of OutServe-SLDN, describes military HIV policy as similar to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He explained: “If you get the right commanding officer, your life can be good. Some people were out to their units and experienced no problems. But, if you get a commanding officer who doesn’t agree with your sexuality or has preconceived notions about HIV, there’s not much you can do about it.”

Since the disease still carries a significant level of stigma, the autonomy of the commander is the single biggest flaw in military HIV policy, as discrimination is sure to be as rampant in the military community as it is the civilian world. Lack of guidance means room for abuse.

Jesse found himself at the crux of this problem, in the middle of the space left open for discrimination. Since he was enlisted before attending a service academy and has yet to experience any symptoms of HIV, the policy would permit him to leave the academy at the end of the semester and continue serving in the enlisted ranks. However, his company officer immediately took action to separate him from not only the academy but the military altogether because he did not believe people with HIV should be allowed to continue their service Jesse filed a complaint with the inspector general, which only served to expedite the commander’s intent to separate Jesse.

As policy dictated, Jesse’s enlistment contract was eventually reinstated, and he continues to serve on active duty. But the process demonstrated how current policy left him vulnerable to his command leadership.

The current lack of non-discrimination policies for HIV-positive personnel makes it impossible for the military to abide by industry standard human resources principles that guide many organizations’ personnel policies. One of those standards, procedural justice rules, states that policies must be, among other things, consistent. It must apply equally across all people and time. The current policy does not apply across all people since commanders can make independent decisions regarding the assignments and missions for which HIV-positive service members are eligible. Another principle, interpersonal justice rules, maintains that all employees must be treated with respect. Again, with the lack of a non-discrimination policy in place, commanders have such a high level of individual discretion that can be, at times, disrespectful to those service members.

Policy Update: Navy Begins the March toward Equality
One of the issues most important to these servicemen was the ban on overseas assignments. At first glance, the regulation appears to be in the best interest of the service member’s health: because they must regularly visit one of the military’s hospitals with an infectious disease clinic, stateside assignments are closest in proximity and therefore ideal.

Rose argues against this logic. Referring to the U.S. Military HIV Research Program, “The military delivers HIV care in the most impoverished places on the planet, like Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet for some reason, they don’t believe they can deliver care for service members outside the United States. What’s more, in any major industrialized city you can find a [infectious disease] doctor or at least a place that can run labs and interpret results.”

Feasibility aside, the negative impacts of the overseas assignment ban on service members’ careers has become well known in recent years. Roger is quick to note the assignments available often offer little potential for moving up the ranks. When Alex’s commander was informed of his status, she took special care to ensure he would be placed in a position that would not prevent him from being promoted. She ordered, “Do not stick him in a billet that will end his career.”

The updated Navy HIV policy also points to this limitation as having “made this subset of personnel less competitive in achieving career milestones or warrior qualifications.” With HIV resembling more of a “chronic condition than anything else,” says Alex, the only performance barrier for service members with HIV is policy, not physical capability. The Navy and the interview participants agree: current military HIV policies have career-ending effects.
However, the other services have yet to similarly update their policies. Still, recognizing the difference in the nature of deployment for the other branches, the service members we interviewed understood the challenges. Roger stated bluntly, “I don’t believe we should be discussing combat zones. Whether you’re sitting behind a desk in Afghanistan or out doing patrols, everyone has the same risk of getting hurt. Medics don’t have time to consider if a person has HIV or not.”

But he does believe personnel could be managed better. “Take Kuwait, for example. It’s not a combat zone. But when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were full on, people were getting sent there, and they could have been used in better places, like in deployable units. All I would need is enough medication for the length of the tour, and I could have taken their place.”

Jesse expressed a similar sentiment. “In my MOS, I’d be doing the same thing in Kuwait that I would be doing in the United States. It wouldn’t change. I hope to stay in the military for a long time, and if my subordinates look at me and see that I don’t have any time overseas, they’re not going to respect me.”

OutServe-SLDN Executive Director, Allyson Robinson, applauds the Navy’s first step toward ending HIV-discrimination in the military and their efforts to remove barriers to career advancement for Sailor and Marines. But Robinson, an Army veteran and West Point graduate, also points out that the policy does nothing to ensure commanders do the right thing:

“The new policy is a modest improvement at best. The latitude it gives to individual commanders to deny these newly opened assignments to HIV-positive Sailors and Marines will likely prove problematic. Misinformation, stigma, and stereotypes should never be allowed to dictate military assignments. Until that kind of discrimination is prevented, policy changes like this may prove not to be worth any more than the paper they’re printed on.”

As President Barack Obama stated when the HIV travel ban was ended in 2009, “If we want to be the global leader in combating HIV/AIDS, we need to act like it.” And if America is going to lead the world in ending the pandemic, properly addressing it in its own armed forces would be a good starting point. Although many of the military’s health and personnel policies are satisfactory, further updates are obviously needed to reflect current knowledge of the virus and to remove the stigma which has pervaded policy formation in the past. With the release of the new policy, the Navy has raised the bar for equality in the military. But consistent with all tasks in the military, the only commendable performance is one which not only meets, but exceeds the standard.

Katie Miller can be contacted at KatieMiller@OutServe.org.

It was a low-key ceremony, befitting the officer Maj. Gen. Jack Stultz, former chief of the Army Reserve, referred to as a “quiet professional.”

At the Women in Military Service for America Memorial, at Arlington National Cemetery, on what General Stultz and Chaplain (Lt. Col.) Robert Pleczkowski called “a great day for the Army,” Tammy Smith was promoted to brigadier general, her stars pinned on by her father, Jack Smith, and her wife Tracey Hepner, co-founder of the Military Partners and Families Coalition.

When DADT was repealed a year ago, many speculated about how long it would take for service members to come out, and specifically how many years it would be before we had an openly gay general or admiral. As it turned out, repeal went better than anyone expected, and while few people made formal speeches to say, “I am gay,” the military culture that honors our families has made it easier, not harder, for gay and lesbian service members to include their loved ones at significant events. So it was that we have our first openly gay flag officer—because she had her wife by her side for her promotion.

All the trappings were present—the playing of honors, a rousing rendition of the National Anthem, the Pledge of Allegiance (led by a young boy whose carefully perfect recitation made everyone smile as they joined in), the invocation, reading of the orders, unfurling of the new general’s flag—right down to the Army Song.

General Stultz spoke glowingly of General Smith’s performance working for the U.S. Army Reserve and about her volunteering for Afghanistan in the thankless job of Army Reserve liaison officer. “It’s a high-profile job, because you never get noticed until something goes wrong with a Soldier,” he said. “That’s why you have to have your best and brightest in there.”

Only a few moments in the ceremony reminded us that here was, at last, an openly gay general officer. The official party was introduced: “Her father, Mr. Jack Smith; and her partner, Ms. Tracey Hepner.” After the formal pinning by Mr. Smith and Ms. Hepner, Smith removed her tunic, and in her dress shirt—still adorned with colonel’s birds—she went downstage to Hepner’s parents. She knelt on one knee so that her mother-in-law, in a wheelchair, and father-in-law could replace the eagles with stars.

Newly promoted, General Smith spoke movingly of her mom, who passed away in 2009. Then she mentioned her family briefly: “My dad, from Oregon; the Hepners from Ohio.” She followed that by saying, simply, “I am just so pleased that my family could participate in this ceremony today.” Simple words, loaded with meaning for gay and lesbian service members whose spouses and families were, for so long, not included.

After her promotion received international press coverage, General Smith issued a statement: “I am deeply honored and genuinely humbled with my selection for brigadier general. With this promotion, I embrace the opportunity to serve in positions of greater responsibility and to continue to lead the amazing Soldiers in the world’s premier Army. While the DoD position is that orientation is a private matter, participating with family in traditional ceremonies, such as the promotion, is both common and expected of a leader. I was grateful to be surrounded by my family, friends and co-workers at this special event. Looking at the photos of Tracey’s joy as she pins the star on my shoulder is a memory that will imprint my heart forever. Her support keeps me Army Strong.”

In her new role as the Deputy Chief for the Army Reserve, General Smith’s responsibilities include looking out for Army Reserve families, making sure that pay and benefits are administered and that family members get the support to which they are entitled. She refuses to be drawn into a discussion about the fact that her own spouse gets none of these benefits. Her focus, she says, is on doing her job well, which means leading and taking care of her Soldiers and their families.

In her speech, General Smith spoke about “standing on the shoulders of giants,” women in the military who’d broken barriers, who’d been firsts, who’d “broken glass ceilings but got scratched in the process.” I can only imagine that in the future, gay and lesbian generals and admirals will be open and proud of their families and will show the humility that Tammy Smith showed—and thank her for being first.

This year, our country celebrated LGBT Pride season for the first time since the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) repeal was implemented. It was the first chance for service members to march in uniform at a Pride parade, yet overwhelmingly, military personnel did not seize the opportunity, with the exception of San Diego.

OutServe urges discretion when it comes to wearing one’s uniform as an openly gay member of the Armed Forces when participating in extracurricular events. The concerns are not unfounded; there are plenty of instances where it is inappropriate for service members, gay or otherwise, to attend non-military events in uniform. It follows that service members’ participation might very well be construed as political activity on behalf of the military.

The argument can be made that LGBT Pride parades do not fall under the category of political activity and therefore it is within a service member’s rights to march in uniform. Though one is certain to see campaign floats, the march is not explicitly political, at least not in a partisan sense. Any candidate from any political party may participate and the funds raised from the celebration do not generally go toward funding political candidates. If anything, Pride is a raw freedom of expression, however one chooses to go about that.

Perhaps it is this unfiltered expression that deters service member from participating in uniform. Because of repressed sexuality, there always tends to be a strong overtone of sexual liberation at Pride events. Even if convinced of the non-political nature, the prospect of marching alongside a float of questionable taste is reason enough to wear civvies.

But beyond ambiguous regulations and raunchy floats, some service members are resistant to wearing their uniforms at Pride parades because of reasons that cut much deeper into our history.

DADT was unique in that it allowed gays and lesbians to serve but mandated their sexuality remain secret, including “acting” heterosexual. Some could simply rely on their colleagues to assume them straight, while others felt their situation called for more active charade, but the point stands: gays and lesbians have become adept at blending in and “passing” as straight. Following the repeal of DADT, it is unsurprising that this gay “standard operating procedure” remains intact.

The extent to which we assimilate is more extreme than the minority groups that have come before us. Obviously, nobody demanded that African Americans pass as white or women be thought of as men when these populations were integrated into the service. Their honorable service and commitment to military values highlighted the similarities between them and the rest of the military.

In due time, they were just accepted for being different.

“The successful repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ proved to the Nation that just like the country we defend, we share different backgrounds, different values, and different beliefs—but together, we are the greatest military force in the world.” -Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense

In contrast with gays and lesbians, there is no overt pressure to accept this difference because it takes a deliberate effort to make known that difference even exists. Unless a service member explicitly identifies himself or herself as gay, many people in their unit will never know. There is no box in the enlistment forms to identify oneself. Contrary to stereotype, gays and lesbians do not look any different from their uniformed counterparts. One cannot simply glance at a cross-section of the Armed Forces and be reminded that people from all sexual orientations serve with distinction. Whether a bun poking out of the back of a service cap, a darker complexion behind camouflage face paint, or an ACU pattern yarmulke, the American people can look to the military and see themselves represented in the sex, race and religion of uniformed service members. There is no equivalent for gays and lesbians.

Since the differences of skin color or sex could not be ignored, they had to be accepted. But because one’s sexual orientation can be hidden, it is prone to remain so. This analogy represents the crucial distinction between acceptance and mere toleration, between seeing a gay service member and assuming one must exist.

Unlike the minority groups, which had to fight to ensure their race, sex or religion was ultimately viewed as an asset to the military, our community may be taking a short cut, not fighting hard enough to make sure that our differences are seen as supportive of the military mission. We are simply not doing our part to prove Secretary Panetta’s words true:  in the military,“diversity is one of our greatest strengths.”

Into the future, we should approach LGBT Pride without a sense of community shame.

There are several reasonable ways to march in uniform, such as having a gay color guard march at the front of a Pride parade. The practice is common among other cultural celebrations, uniform and all.

As Secretary Panetta said last month, “The successful repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ proved to the Nation that just like the country we defend, we share different backgrounds, different values, and different beliefs—but together, we are the greatest military force in the world.”

The pursuit of equality is just as fundamental to U.S. history as the sacrifice of service members across the generations. At the intersection of these American stories lies the gay or lesbian members of our military. Wear the uniform with pride.

WASHINGTON, June 15 – Today, OutServe, the association of actively-serving LGBT U.S. military personnel and one of the largest LGBT employee resource groups in the world, praised Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s LGBT Pride message. The Secretary issued a video message to all Defense Department employees commemorating June as LGBT Pride Month, and recognizing gay and lesbian military members as well as LGBT civilian employees of the Pentagon.

“This historic video confirms the message that the military supports all service members and civilian employees, based on their merit,” said Josh Seefried, Co-Director of OutServe. “This is a tribute to our core military values: respect and integrity. If there is any remaining doubt that the military has executed DADT repeal with excellence, and that LGBT people are serving our country with honor, Secretary Panetta has firmly put that to rest.  This is leadership directly from the top.”

Watch the video:

 
More on the Secretary’s message at http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116755

Here’s how President Obama ended his speech at a fundraiser earlier this week:

“I go back to my birthplace once a year. And we usually stay near a Marine base. And it’s depressing working out at the gym at the Marine base because the Marines all have 2 percent body fat and can bench 500 pounds — (laughter) — and they make you feel bad.

“This past winter, while I’d be working out, folks would come up to me and they would say, you know what, Mr. President, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate you repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” because I’d been serving as a Marine for five years, for 10 years. There have been times where I haven’t been able to have my partner see me off as I’m being deployed. And for you to acknowledge me not just as a soldier but somebody who is a full citizen and equal participant in the life of this country really makes a difference.


And … after about four of these, the last day, a young man came up – and first, he pointed out that I wasn’t doing the exercise right. (Laughter.) And then, he said, I want to thank you for repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell.” And I was anticipating a similar story. And so I asked him, well, what kind of struggles have you been through being gay in uniform? He says, no, sir, I’m not gay. I want to thank you because I’ve had friends who were gay who were great Marines. And it always embarrassed me that somehow – even though it didn’t matter to any of us in the unit – they had to pretend to be something they weren’t. And this will make us better Marines and this will make us stronger as a country.

And that spirit is why I’m running for a second term, because I believe that’s the essence of who we are as a country. That’s what makes us special. That’s what we’re fighting for.”

Aside from being a great anecdote (and probably true, given the number of gay service members who’ve told me they thanked the President), this highlights a new political dynamic at work in this year’s election. Conventional wisdom for years – forEVER – was that there is no political upside to supporting gay issues, only downside. Democrats were deeply scarred by the beating Bill Clinton took when he tried to lift the military’s gay ban in 1993; many say he never recovered. Some of us suspect that Clinton alum Rahm Emanuel influenced the initial hesitation of the Obama administration over DADT repeal. You can’t win, the argument was. Gays and liberals won’t reward you, and conservatives will punish you.

My, how times have changed.

Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is not only widely popular, but centrally featured in the Obama stump speech. The President’s (and Vice President’s – oops) statement in support of marriage equality galvanized the progressive base. New Yorker Andrew Cuomo’s strong stand for marriage equality has helped, not hurt, the popular governor.

For those of us who pre-date “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the vision of political leaders actually touting their support for LGBT Americans is a marvel. In years to come, DADT repeal may be viewed as the tipping point for real civil rights. Let’s hope that the momentum continues – and work toward that end.

The U.S. Congress has a 9% approval rating. Whatever your political leanings, you’re probably disgusted with how our elected representatives are working (or NOT working, as the case may be). Meanwhile, although the country has been at war for over a decade, the number of veterans in Congress has sunk to the lowest level since World War II. A cohort of energetic, courageous, responsible individuals, who have proven their dedication to service and country, are missing in action from the nation’s most important deliberative body. 

I get that most military people don’t see politics as a particularly honorable profession. And both custom and regulation limit the ability of active-duty military members’ political involvement. There isn’t much current research about the political involvement of active military, though on this topic, Major Jim Golby notes that “low levels of participation among members of the military… is consistent with the research of… Heidi Urben, who finds that – with the exception of voting – members of the Army participate in domestic politics at very low rates.”

However, it behooves current and former military members to get involved. When Congress is deciding when and how to go to war, we need veterans in the conversation.

But how do we get there, when it’s so difficult to unseat incumbents?

Former Army officer Donna McAleer is running for Utah's 1st District.

Former Army officer Donna McAleer is giving it a shot in Utah’s 1^st District. After graduating West Point, and serving in Germany, she worked in both corporate and nonprofit sectors while maintaining her connections with the Army and the Academy.  President of her West Point class, she was the second woman graduate to serve on the Board of the Academy’s alumni organization. And for several years, she was a vocal “straight ally” fighting alongside Knights Out (West Point LGBT alumni) for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” She talks about what drove her to run:

“Previously, I coached a high school girls’ volleyball team. But the role models these young athletes looked up to – celebrities and rock stars – didn’t portray the American values I saw every day in the Army. That’s why I wrote the book [the award-winning Porcelain on Steel: Women of West Point’s Long Grey Line], and that’s why I decided to run for office: for the next generation.”

McAleer’s campaign slogan, “Not Left. Not Right. Forward” is meant to define her moderate views and her intention to avoid the rancor and deep divisions between current party leaders.

“My oath to my country didn’t end when I hung up my uniform,” she says, echoing the sentiments of many other veterans. “I am running to serve my constituents; to honor our commitments to our service members and veterans, to strengthen the economy and our national security. In the military, the focus is on mission, not on self. We need the same focus in Congress: on the mission of serving the citizens of this country.”

Tammy Duckworth, a former Black Hawk helicopter pilot, is running for Illinois's 8th District. Photo courtesy of alumni.gwu.edu

Tammy Duckworth was a Black Hawk helicopter pilot serving in Iraq when her helicopter was hit by an RPG. She lost both legs and the use of her right arm. While still at Walter Reed, she began advocating for other veterans to get the care they needed, which led to an appointment as Director of Illinois’ Department of Veterans’ Affairs. After pioneering work implementing programs for post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, and homelessness, she was tapped by President Obama to be Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Now Duckworth is running for Congress in Illinois’s 8^th District. Like McAleer, she too talks about “running to serve”:

“Right now, I’m living in what I call my “bonus time.” I should have died in a dusty field in Iraq when my helicopter was shot down, but my buddies saved my life. That experience allows me to be more fearless. I am running to serve – to be worthy of this second chance I’ve been given… I believe that we need more Members of Congress who understand what it means to be a servant to the public.”

Both McAleer and Duckworth supported repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and take their Army values to heart in their policy positions.

McAleer:

“What matters in the military are the desire and ability to serve, willingness to learn, commitment to accomplish the mission, courage, and integrity. These attributes are independent of sexual orientation. I’m proud that I supported fellow West Point grads in support of repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’; repeal made our military stronger.”

Duckworth:

I am proud that our Armed Forces will never again discharge patriotic Americans because of their sexual orientation. Members of my family have served our country during every period of conflict since the Revolution, and so have gay and lesbian Americans. Women can also trace their service to the heroic Molly Pitcher. It’s taken far too long, but today America is stronger because now all who can do the job and love their country may serve in our nation’s military.

I’ve focused in this blog on two friends of mine. There are many more veterans running this fall, often against entrenched incumbents. They need your help, and your support. Do your research, find the ones who match your ideals and beliefs, and write a check.

Write a check? Yes, because that’s how you get elected in this country in 2012. We have to learn how to write $50, $100, and $250 checks to support those who will fight in Congress for our beliefs. It felt weird the first time I did it, while in my first civilian job – what, this isn’t even tax-deductible? But I’ve learned that this is every bit as important as voting. Get active. Get involved.

Congress in the coming years should have, not a record low number of veterans, but record highs. We can make that happen.

Now that some have been given official permission to wear their uniform in Pride Parades, here is the latest SLDN and OutServe guidance, as of July 20, 2012, for uniform wear in relation to the San Diego Pride Parade:

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/sldn-issues-uniform-guidance-for-san-diego-pride-parade/

Previous Guidance

Compiled by OutServe’s Actively Serving Leadership Council

As we move into pride season, many have questions about wearing uniforms or participating in color guards at local events.  OutServe also gets frequent questions about wear of uniforms at events like the Human Right’s Campaign or Servicemembers Legal Defense Network annual dinners.

The DoD political activities and ethics rules are complicated, and there is no easy answer.  Each event is different, and the rules change depending on what role you play.  The OutServe Actively Serving Leadership team has been working to develop some recommendations and guidelines to help our members determine what is appropriate. 

The guidelines basically fall into three core rules that are really pretty simple and fall into the category of basic good military judgment:

• Military members should avoid partisan politics.
• Military members should never give the impression that a military service is endorsing a particular organization, viewpoint, or cause.
• We should always show pride in our service, wear our uniforms correctly, observe proper customs and courtesies, and never put ourselves in a position to bring shame on the military.

There is a time and a place for everything, and this year is probably not the time to make waves.  Most pride parades today are much more similar in nature to St. Patrick’s Day or Columbus Day parades than they are to political rallies and marches. Military participation should be judged according to that standard – and military members march at these events all the time.  On the other hand, the issue of open LGBT military service is still viewed by many as a political hot potato and marching in uniform could be viewed as an act of protest. OutServe’s recommendation: This is not the year to take that step. Let’s wait a year, demonstrate our professionalism as we march in civilian clothes, and next year, having proven ourselves, we can work with the Department and gain formal approval to proudly march together as a uniformed contingent for Pride.

Our recommendations are linked here. There are many applicable regulations, and the information is very detailed. We reference the DoD rules, but the document is neither all-encompassing, nor the definitive answer.  If you have questions about a particular issue or event, please consult your local staff judge advocate or SLDN for advice.

We look forward to hearing your opinions and discussion on these complicated issues.  Contact us at asl@outserve.org or post your comments to the thread on our FaceBook page.

• A lesbian den mother gets kicked out of the Boy Scouts because, the Boy Scouts say, “Our mission does not include teaching about sex and sexual orientation.” (CNN Report)

• Presidential candidate Rick Santorum would reinstate DADT because “sexual activity has no place in the military.” (Tom Christopher reports)

• Elaine Donnelly of CMR links an increase in sexual assault to repeal of DADT. (The New Civil Rights Movement reports) I would also point out that rape is not about sex, it’s about violence, but that’s another discussion.

And don’t even get me started on the rantings of people like Peter LaBarbera and Tony Perkins.

Those who oppose full civil rights for LGBT people are fixated on one thing: that homosexuality is all about sex.

Well, news flash: that’s twisted. At our core, being gay is not about sex, it’s about family.

It’s about who you choose to share your life with – it’s about the person who shares your dreams. It’s about first dates, wedding photos, paying bills, raising kids, going to PTA meetings, caring for each other in sickness and in health. In the military, it’s about who’s waiting anxiously at home for the next Skype chat from a deployed partner.

If you find that confusing, I have some questions for you:

• Do you stop holding hands with your spouse if children are around?
• Do you hide pictures of your family in your desk at work?
• Do you consider your wedding photos pornography?
• Do you think Sports Illustrated and Marie Claire should be wrapped in brown paper?
• And that When Harry Met Sally should be rated “X”?

Of course not. We recognize that love is a regular and healthy part of life. And it so happens that a significant portion of humans fall in love with other humans who happen to be the same gender. What happens in private between two people should be private – but those who suggest that means that LGB people must be invisible are exposing their own prejudice.

My partner Penny is a former AT&T project manager, a certified massage therapist, a breast cancer survivor and a Virgo. She loves cats, the Discovery Channel, and the ocean. We bicker over chores, eat too much pizza, agonize over her mammograms. We don’t have kids, like so many of our gay and lesbian friends do, so we focus on our work with military people; as the partner of a former military officer, she worries constantly about partners of deployed Soldiers, and has worked to provide them support.

So when I talk about my partner, I’m talking about my life, about my family.  If my talking about my partner, or about what it’s like to be gay, makes you think about SEX, then you need to see a therapist about what you’re repressing.

And if you’re browsing OutServe Magazine to get a peek at the gay porn, you’re going to be disappointed. We are human beings following E. M. Forster’s famous guidance on life: Only connect. We hope OutServe Magazine is another point of connection for you.