Beyond 'don't ask, don't tell': How is military planning to make it work?
As the military marches into a post 'don't ask, don't tell' future, some policies will be easier to devise than others. Troops' living conditions will be relatively simple. Rights for gay partners won't.
US Army soldiers rest in a tent at al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq on Dec. 2. The repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' has the Pentagon figuring out the answers to a bevy of questions. Where homosexual troops will go to the bathroom will be easier to answer than whether those troops' partners will be eligible for the same benefits spouses of troops enjoy.
Maya Alleruzzo/AP
Washington
Now that Congress has passed the repeal of 鈥渄on鈥檛 ask, don鈥檛 tell,鈥� which banned openly gay troops from serving in the armed forces, the Pentagon must figure out how, precisely, to devise regulations governing the lives and service of homosexual members of the armed forces.
In the months ahead, the military will be grappling with questions like whether there should be separate bathroom facilities for homosexual soldiers, for example, and whether same-sex partners will have the right to the same benefits that heterosexual spouses do. These include everything from the privilege of shopping at base grocery and department stores (where goods are generally cheaper and sales are tax-free) to living in base housing and access to health care.
Some of these decisions will be less tricky 鈥� and less fraught 鈥� than others. In the category of, say, "particularly complex" is whether gay troops will be eligible for the cash housing allowances that married soldiers get, but that single soldiers with live-in girlfriends or boyfriends do not.
The matter of same-sex bathrooms is far more straightforward, according to the recommendations of the military leaders who headed up the Pentagon鈥檚 recent study on attitudes towards gay troops serving openly in the military. 鈥淚n the course of our review, we heard from a very large number of service members about their discomfort with sharing bathroom facilities or living quarters with those they know to be gay or lesbian,鈥� the report鈥檚 authors conceded. 鈥淪ome went so far to suggest that a repeal of Don鈥檛 Ask, Don鈥檛 Tell may even require separate bathroom and shower facilities for gay men and lesbians.鈥�
'More harm than good'
The task force study鈥檚 leaders, Gen. Carter Ham and Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon鈥檚 top lawyer, agreed on their response to this particular request 鈥� that separate bathroom facilities 鈥渨ould do more harm than good鈥� and would be impractical to enforce. 鈥淭he creation of a third and possibly fourth category of bathroom facilities and living quarters, whether at bases or forward deployed areas, would be a logistical nightmare, expensive, and impossible to administer,鈥� they wrote.
What鈥檚 more, even if such segregated bathrooms were logistically feasible, 鈥淪eparate facilities would, in our view, stigmatize gay and lesbian service members in a manner reminiscent of 鈥榮eparate but equal鈥� facilities for blacks prior to the 1960s.鈥�
At times, the study鈥檚 recommendations on how to handle various situations arising from repeal of the law have been cause for some humor in the Pentagon halls for their specificity. 鈥淐ommon sense tells us that a situation in which people of different anatomy shower together is different from a situation in which people of the same anatomy but different sexual orientations shower together. 鈥� As one gay former service member told us, to fit in, co-exist, and conform to social norms, gay men have learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or threatened in these situations.鈥�
The study concludes, however, that commanders can 鈥渞etain the authority they currently have to alter berthing or billeting assignments or accommodate privacy concerns on an individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interests of morale, good order and discipline.鈥�
Impact of other laws
There are, too, current laws that prevent the partners of gay troops from having the same benefits of spouses, even if the homosexual couple is legally married in a state that allows it. The Defense of Marriage Act, for example, defines marriage to mean 鈥渙nly a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife鈥� and spouse to mean 鈥渙nly a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.鈥�
As a result, according to the Pentagon study, 鈥渦nder current law, full benefit parity between spouses of heterosexual service members and same-sex partners of gay and lesbian service members in committed relationships is legally impossible.鈥�
Specifically, for example, cash housing benefits for soldiers living off-base 鈥渁re statutorily defined in a way that does not allow extension to any same-sex relationship.鈥� Though service members who have spouses are entitled to 鈥渟ignificantly higher鈥� allowances if they have 鈥渄ependents,鈥� a dependent is also defined by law, the Pentagon study points out, and is limited to children, dependent parents, and a 鈥渟pouse,鈥� which under the federal Defense of Marriage Act must be a person of the opposite sex.
Likewise, military health-care benefits for same-sex partners 鈥渁re legally limited in the same way, because coverage is for 鈥榙ependents鈥� and that term is defined by law.鈥�
The Pentagon鈥檚 study 鈥渟imply cannot recommend鈥� that the Defense Department extend these housing benefits to same-sex couples, 鈥渂ecause it would be legally impermissible to do so.鈥� Nor did the task force, as a result, address the 鈥渇iscal implications of extending these types of benefits.鈥�
But there may be more changes on the horizon that overturns current law and may force the military to readdress many of these issues even as it begins implementing the law in the months to come. In July, a federal district court in Boston declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. That case, the Pentagon study points out, is currently under appeal.