Thursday, December 15, 2011

The Myth of the DADT Forced Lie

Retired Admiral Mike Mullen said repeal of DADT was a matter of INTEGRITY for him.  He said DADT forced service men and women to lie every day about who they were.  Just for the record, I know three gay Captains with more than 82 years of Naval service between them. So far as I know, they never lied once about who they were  (certainly not to me).  And, they don't lie today.  All served honorably; all retired honorably - as many gay Sailors in every paygrade have.  No one forces anyone to lie.  Lying is a choice; one's sexual preference may not be and I appreciate that. For those who believe they were FORCED to live a lie - the truth may not have been as damaging as you believed.  In any case, lying or not - thank you for your service.

David Ignatius says, "Mullen knows that his greatest legacy will be a cultural and legal issue — ending discrimination against gays in the military by dismantling the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. He did it for reasons of conscience and never looked back. It was a moment of leadership, pure and simple." 

BTW, Admiral Mike Mullen didn't dismantle DADT.  He simply added his important voice to endorsing the President's position for repeal of DADT just as previous Chairmen had added their important voices in support of their President endorsing DADT.  Rarely do we hear a JCS Chairman publicly voice opposition to the President's position.  That would take incredible courage.


Justin Rogers ENS, USN (1170) said...

I like this blog dabbling into the social/political and ethical all at the same time!! You think about this issue differently which is a very good thing. A reason for repeal, yes, had to do with integrity, but that wasn't the only reason. One of the biggest I can think of is that the American people wanted it changed!! I think the final vote was close to 60 yeas with like 7-8 Republicans voting in the affirmative. ADM Mullen also noted in his testimony that the integrity issue was the bases for his personal opinion. His professional opinion was based on the results of the DoD Survey that was conducted. There's also evidence out there that said we were loosing talent and dollars because of the law. No, but you raise a valid point when you say that lying is a choice. It's also a choice that carries unjust consequences in this case that were put into effect by other human beings.

Anonymous said...

So in your universe cross-dressing is normal?

LCDRLDO/6440 said...

"I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

I guess it was ok for some to lie after all.......

Anonymous said...


Absolutely correct, and followed by true military individuals to carry out their sworn Oath, which was the truth we lived by. But when we look at some people today who do not see their duty to their oath of office as we did, what are we to do?

Very Respectfully,

Anonymous said...


The clause you cited is not in the Oath of Office, and for good reason. A commissioned officer's duty is to the Constitution alone. Put another way: while an enlistee has the right to refuse an unlawful order, an officer has the obligation to do so.

And that is why the Sailor's Creed, as a whole, cannot apply to commissioned officers.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:27 PM

When does the caste system stop? The lines between O & E is fast going away. The Sailor's Creed may not apply to "you" but if the 22 fired COs this abided by the creed maybe they would still be command?

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:47,

Why the disrespect to the officer corps? To be fair, I don't think the creed (a product of the Clinton administration) should be recited by enlisted Sailors either, as currently worded. The oath of enlistment requires obedience to orders in accordance with regulations and the UCMJ. The creed does not make that distinction, with the implication that you have to mindlessly obey all orders. For these reasons, I can't recite the entire creed in good conscience.

-Anon 3:27

MCPO said...

Anon 3:27,

"Why the disrespect to the officer corps?"

Where did I disrespect the officer corps in my post?

If the COs that were fired simply embodied the Sailor's Creed they would still have their jobs and not given the USN a black eye.

You might want to review the Oath of Enlistment and the Sailor Creed.

Oath: I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me...

Creed: I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me.

-Anon 1:47

Anonymous said...


Referring to the officer corps as part of a "caste system" strongly implies undeserved authority and position. If that was not your intent, please explain.

With regard to the oath of enlistment, you left off the important part: "...according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." That's an important qualifier against unlawful orders, and the creed doesn't have it.

Reciting a creed doesn't make you a better person. This is equally true for officers and enlisted.

-Anon 3:27

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
CWO4 Brian Ashpole, USN-Retired said...

For the Master Chief:
If these words are already in the Oath of Enlistment taken by everyone who enlists in the Navy, why do Sailors need a "Sailor's Creed" to remind them of these words. I thought that that was what a Chief Petty Officer's job was (and still is).

I would also like to remind the Master Chief that Officers do not take an oath of enlistment. Officers take and Oath of Office with some slightly different wording. Additionally, an officer does not serve for a finite time, he or she serves at the pleasure of the President.

Dan Counts said...

Depends on what you consider lying. Lying by omission is just as bad as lying by commission. How many times were gay and lesbian service members not allowed to bring their partners to the ship/base or to functions because they were still in violation of the UCMJ because they were in a same-sex relationship? This is the lying that eats like a cancer because everyone begins to think, "What else are they hiding?"