Obama Signs DADT Repeal: A Tribute to GOP Senators & Reps

[Gokul43201]

Today Obama signed into law the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (the policy that required non-heterosexual members of the military to hide their sexual orientation in order to not be fired). Another chapter in US civil rights violations is closed. I'm happy to see this happen, and I'd like to personally recognize the Republicans in the Senate and House that voted against the majority of their party.

From the Senate:
Scott Brown (MA)
Richard Burr (NC)
Susan Collins (ME)
John Ensign (NV)
Mark Kirk (IL)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
George Voinovich (OH)

From the House:
Judy Biggert (IL)
Mary Bono Mack (CA)
John Campbell (CA)
Anh "Joseph" Cao (LA)
Mike Castle (DE)
Charlie Dent (PA)
Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL)
Charles Djou (HI)
David Dreier (CA)
Vernon Ehlers (MI)
Jeff Flake (AZ)
Ron Paul (TX)
Todd Platts (PA)
Dave Reichert (WA)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL)

I hope I haven't missed anyone.

I'm also grateful for Dems in conservative states and districts voting against popular opinion, and potentially hurting their chances of re-election by standing up for an unpopular position. I believe it is definitely the right one.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Ask,_Don't_Tell_Repeal_Act_of_2010
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml

 

[russ_watters]

...(the policy that required non-heterosexual members of the military to hide their sexual orientation in order to not be fired).

DADT can also be characterized as a policy that for the first time allowed gays to serve in the military, which is why Clinton signed it.

Another chapter in US civil rights violations is closed.

Members of the military don't have the same civil rights as civilians, so that really isn't all that relevant.

I'm ambivalent about the issue in general: On the one hand, it's good for gays who want to serve in the military, which is nice, but not the point of the military. It also is good because it removes a political hotbutton issue for some people to criticize the US/the military with. On the other hand, it creates some challenging morale/discipline situations, which may even result in it not changing anything for some gays (some still may feel it important to hide their sexuality, regardless of if the law says they don't have to).

Also, I'm curious as to what you mean by the title. Clearly, you at least care enough to post a thread about it!

 

[Gokul43201]

DADT can also be characterized as a policy that allowed gays to serve in the military, which is why Clinton signed it.

Sure. It was an improvement over a previous, even more discriminatory state of affairs. Just like Jim Crow was an improvement, but was the only politically viable option at the time, given the opinions of the public and members of Congress.

 

[Jack21222]

Well, there goes my chosen draft dodge in the highly unlikely event that the draft comes back while I'm young enough to qualify.

 

[Gokul43201]

Members of the military don't have the same civil rights as civilians, so that really isn't all that relevant.

I think Judge Phillips in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States would disagree.

Also, I'm curious as to what you mean by the title. Clearly, you at least care enough to post a thread about it!

Yes I care that DADT was repealed.

I don't care whether the people I work with are heterosexual or not, and after this new policy is executed, sexual orientation will become a non-issue (at least on paper) in the military as well. Or, in other words, gay, lesbian and bisexual members of the military will no longer have to care about the threat of being discharged for revealing their sexual orientation.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Well, there goes my chosen draft dodge in the highly unlikely event that the draft comes back while I'm young enough to qualify.

I don't think they are quite that fussy when they are looking for cannon fodder

 

[mheslep]

I'm usually delete incoming from my Senator, Sen Webb, but I read him this time. USNA, USMC Vietnam, Sec. Navy - he takes military matters seriously, especially those pertaining directly to the troops. I particularly like the way he declines to trivialize the arguments against passage.
http://webb.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100066915.187857.470&gen=1

 

[mheslep]

I strongly disagree that sexual orientation* will become a non-issue in the military because of DADT, though perhaps it will be on paper. The integration of women in the military, for instance, is still very much an issue on a day to day basis, at least from what I'm told by some folks in senior leadership positions - from both sides of the gender fence. It seems to me the successful argument to repeal DADT doesn't rest on an assumption that there won't be problems, even long, long term problems, but that on balance it is better to retain the service of gay members of the military, and to continue to have a force that resembles the country it serves.

*I also object to comparisons between discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation, and ethnicity - two very different things.

 

[russ_watters]

I think Judge Phillips in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States would disagree.

I'm not sure if he would or not. He doesn't address the issue I posed!

Yes I care that DADT was repealed.

I don't care whether the people I work with are heterosexual or not, and after this new policy is executed, sexual orientation will become a non-issue (at least on paper) in the military as well. Or, in other words, gay, lesbian and bisexual members of the military will no longer have to care about the threat of being discharged for revealing their sexual orientation.

Got it - you're saying that the new policy could be considered DADC.

 

[russ_watters]

I strongly disagree that sexual orientation* will become a non-issue in the military because of DADT, though perhaps it will be on paper. The integration of women in the military, for instance, is still very much an issue [snip] from both sides of the gender fence. It seems to me the successful argument to repeal DADT doesn't rest on an assumption that there won't be problems, even long, long term problems, but that on balance it is better to retain the service of gay members of the military, and to continue to have a force that resembles the country it serves.

*I also object to comparisons between discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation, and ethnicity - two very different things.

Precisely. Because of my belief that the function of the military is important (in other words, in other contexts, rights are protected even at the severe expense of performance, such as with public transportation and education access), I tend to favor effectiveness over the rights of the members (I also get annoyed when members of the military complain about having to shave their heads, wear the same clothes, etc., in violation of their freedom of expression, for example). I view the issue in similar terms as with women in the military and even see direct parallels in some of the implimentation issues. I suspect the intent here will be for full/instant implimentation, despite having the same problems of implimentation that still keeps women off of submarines, some 15 years after policy changes mandated allowing women into most roles in the military. I suspect that implimentation will proceed under the assumption that no implimentation issues exist/need to be addressed, such as providing separate facilities.

So ultimately the issue for me with the repeal comes down to a question of whether eliminating the political headache is worth creating a headache for the military, which will reduce its effectiveness. And what bothers me about this (and a large fraction of other laws) is that Congress only cares about its own headaches, not the headaches of those who have to impliment/follow its laws (unless those people are paying them, of course).

on a day to day basis, at least from what I'm told by some folks in senior leadership positions -

While you may have to ask people about morale, discipline and individual performance (as opposed to financial performance) issues related to women in the military, the functional and financail issues are a matter of public record. This years' news included the implimentation of women serving on submarines:

The Department of the Navy has announced a policy change that will allow women to serve on submarines. The change was considered by Congress after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates formally presented a letter to congressional leaders Feb. 19, 2010 notifying them of the Department of Navy's desire to reverse current policy of prohibiting submarine service to women.

"There are extremely capable women in the Navy who have the talent and desire to succeed in the submarine force," said the Honorable Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy. "Enabling them to serve in the submarine community is best for the submarine force and our Navy. We literally could not run the Navy without women today."

On July 28, 1994, Congress was notified of policy changes to expand the number of assignments available to women in the Navy. At that time, opening assignments aboard submarines to women was deemed cost prohibitive and assignments on submarines remained closed. Currently, women make up 15 percent of the active duty Navy � 52,446 of 330,700. Integrating women into the submarine force increases the talent pool for officer accessions and subsequently the force's overall readiness, ensuring that the U.S. Submarine Force will remain the world's most capable for ensuing decades.

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=52954
And:

The Royal Norwegian Navy became the first[citation needed] navy in the world to permit female personnel to serve in submarines, appointing a female submarine captain in 1995,[16] followed by the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) in 1998 and thereafter Canada and Spain,[17] all operators of conventional submarines.

Social reasons include the need to segregate accommodation and facilities, with figures from the US Navy highlighting the increased cost, $300,000 per bunk to permit women to serve on submarines versus $4,000 per bunk to allow women to serve on aircraft carriers.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military#Women_on_submarines

Note, this doesn't completely open submarines to women: only female officers. Reason being, officers have better facilities than enlisted (smaller, more private berthing compartments and bathrooms), so it is easier to provide separate facilities to female officers. Similarly, not even all large surface combatants are integrated. If the smallest enlisted berthing compartment on a ship of 200 enlisted sailors is 40 people (it was roughly that on the frigate I was on), you need 20% of your deployable sailors to be female in order to integrate all of these ships. So instead, some ships have no women (officers or enlisted) and others have a lot. And while it is a somewhat minor of an issue, berthing compartments are separated by department, which can't be done if all women have to be in one. This affects not just comraderie in the department, but also presents functional and safety issues in trying to keep track of your department's sailors.

The Department of the Navy has been woking on this $296,000 headache that for 15 years (and I doubt that's figured into the cost), but Congress never had to think about. Similarly, there is very little public discussion going on about what similar headaches apply with DADT. Certainly, for Congress, their headaches are over. The headaches for the military are just beginning.

 

[mheslep]

I suspect the intent here will be for full/instant implimentation, despite having the same problems of implimentation that still keeps women off of submarines, some 15 years after policy changes mandated allowing women into most roles in the military.

Apparently not. Webb was concerned about an instant, overnight attempt and http://www.scribd.com/doc/45747526/Webb-Gates-DADT-17-Dec-2010" that, per his understanding of the repeal law, implimentation could be done on a command-by-command basis, and not all at once.

 

[Newai]

I'm not sure if he would or not. He doesn't address the issue I posed! Got it - you're saying that the new policy could be considered DADC.

She.

 

[russ_watters]

[note - I was still adding to my previous post when you posted this]

Apparently not. Webb was concerned about an instant, overnight attempt and http://www.scribd.com/doc/45747526/Webb-Gates-DADT-17-Dec-2010" that, per his understanding of the repeal law, implimentation could be done on a command-by-command basis, and not all at once.

That's very interesting, thanks. I'm glad at least some in Congress are thinking about the implimentation issues (Webb is also a former Navy officer and SECNAV). What isn't contained in those letters is either a timetable or the possibility of any short term or long term exceptions to the policy because of implimentation difficulty/impossibility. The women-in-the military thing ony gets occasional press these days and doesn't generate much controversy (no controversy=no headache for congress and thus no reason to push the issue), but I suspect women will never be fully integrated and certainly there will be de-facto limits on their service. Ie, even if the SEALs are ever opened-up to women, unless a strong Affirmative Action program is implimented, to the severe detriment of the service, we'll never have 20% female SEALs.

 

[Proton Soup]

maybe the army needs linguists more than it needs people with a preoccupation on homosexuality.

 

[russ_watters]

maybe the army needs linguists more than it needs people with a preoccupation on homosexuality.

Implying opening the service up to homosexuals will bring in more linguists? Perhaps and I'm completely fine with that. I spent some time at Quantaco Naval Medical Clinic about 10 yearrs ago and there were was a boyfriend/boyfriend couple serving more or less openly in the pharmacy department, with no problems. In certain areas/disciplines, the implimentation issues are practically nonexistent. However, the vast majority of those are non-combat/non-deployed positions.

 

[Proton Soup]

Implying opening the service up to homosexuals will bring in more linguists? Perhaps and I'm completely fine with that. I spent some time at Quantaco Naval Medical Clinic about 10 yearrs ago and there were was a boyfriend/boyfriend couple serving more or less openly in the pharmacy department, with no problems. In certain areas/disciplines, the implimentation issues are practically nonexistent. However, the vast majority of those are non-combat/non-deployed positions.

it might bring in more. there was an event a few years back that involved dismissal of homosexual linguists.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml

 

[DBTS]

Well, there goes my chosen draft dodge in the highly unlikely event that the draft comes back while I'm young enough to qualify.

There are plenty of other ways to not get drafted. As for myself, I am glad something like this has been repealed, it seemed rather idiotic in the first place. I am an ROTC student and this has become the talk of the unit and it has been debated much within our circle, some people are against the repeal while others are for the complete dismantle of DADT. I think in the line of fire, a person really doesn't care whether his or her partner is a homosexual or a heterosexual, they just want someone who will stand by them until the end really or someone who has their back.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am glad to see this, but more for the sake of the military than for the sake of gay soldiers. We need the best people we can get who are willing to serve. The concern is that this may somehow weaken the military, but I tend to think it will have the opposite effect by increasing the pool of talent able and willing to serve.

This is clearly not the same issue as women in the military. We aren't introducing any new elements here. We are only recognizing one that has always been there. The only thing changing is that soldiers are no longer required to live a lie for God and country. So in a very real sense, in the most tangible sense, nothing is changing. Gay men have always served and they will continue to do so.

Since we have always had gay men in the military, I see no reason for special accommodations. If gay and straight boys can share locker rooms in jr. high and high school, and young men can deal with it in college and at gyms, I think soldiers can figure out how to deal with it. To me this concern is just silly.

As for any concerns about sexual activity, that objection assumes that somehow gays will be less disciplined than other soldiers. Whether it be alcohol or other drugs, sex, fighting, rape, or the killing of innocent civilians, discipline and conduct are always concerns. Again, there is nothing new here. A few will violate the code of conduct, which is true with or without gays in the military.

It also seems that for young people this is mostly a non-issue. It’s only the old farts who will never [or never again] serve, who are worried.

Lesbians can serve wherever women can serve. The same arguments apply.

My advice to young homosexuals is to avoid the military and go to college. I offer the same advice to young heterosexuals. If you do things right, you will be way ahead of the game without the military. If you want to serve your country, do it for that reason and no other.

 

[wuliheron]

I think most people don't really understand just how important this move is to the gay community, but I'm a military brat who experienced first hand the impact of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

Years before the civil rights movement took off the military had already desegregated and Uncle Sam made it clear that bigotry was no longer acceptable in the military. My own parents, who were raised in an extremely segregated and bigoted community, thereafter kept their opinions to themselves even in the privacy of their own home and around their own children. If it was good enough for Uncle Sam, it was good enough for them.

Over the last decade gay civil rights advocates have made significant inroads in garnering public support and the tipping point is steadily coming within reach. The number of Americans who now perceive gay relationships as morally wrong is now at an all time low while over half now find gay relationships acceptable. Most of the progress made has been towards the acceptance of lesbians, while gay mens relationships still appear to be a particularly contentious issue.

Historically the acceptance of any minority group in the US has often begun with their military service. It is one thing to hate someone from a distance, and another to fight along side them in the trenches and depend on them for your survival. In fact, my middle name is "Bertram" and comes from a Jewish man who died in WWI fighting next to my Christian grandfather. WWII didn't exactly introduce a completely integrated military, but it is notable that all the Italian, Jewish, Irish Catholics, etc. that were integrated experienced a great deal less bigotry and bias after the war then before. For gays to be able to serve openly is a huge step forward in their ability to prove their worth as human beings to even the most skeptical.

 

[russ_watters]

This is clearly not the same issue as women in the military. We aren't introducing any new elements here. We are only recognizing one that has always been there. The only thing changing is that soldiers are no longer required to live a lie for God and country. So in a very real sense, in the most tangible sense, nothing is changing. Gay men have always served and they will continue to do so.

Recognizing an element that has always been there is going to introduce a new element for a soldier who didn't recognize it before.

Since we have always had gay men in the military, I see no reason for special accommodations. If gay and straight boys can share locker rooms in jr. high and high school, and young men can deal with it in college and at gyms, I think soldiers can figure out how to deal with it. To me this concern is just silly.

Showering together (gay or not) is famously traumatic for kids, but I've never heard of any discussion of introducing a gay/stright element -- probably because few teenage boys know if they are gay! It most certainly is different and it is something that is being considered:

another military official said that the Department of Defense was beginning to look at the practical implications of a repeal — for example, whether it would be necessary to change shower facilities and locker rooms because of privacy concerns, whether to ban public displays of affection on military bases and what to do about troops who are stationed or make port calls in nations that outlaw homosexuality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/politics/15military.html?_r=1

As for any concerns about sexual activity, that objection assumes that somehow gays will be less disciplined than other soldiers.

No, it assumes they will be equally as undisciplined and that this will introduce additional opportunities to be undisciplined. Anecdotal only, but I've heard sex issues (prostitution, pregnancy, STDs) are significant problems on male/female integrated ships.

Whether it be alcohol or other drugs, sex, fighting, rape, or the killing of innocent civilians, discipline and conduct are always concerns. Again, there is nothing new here. A few will violate the code of conduct, which is true with or without gays in the military.

On the one hand it seems you are saying that there will be exactly the same level of discipline, but on the other hand you seem to acknowledge that more openly serving gays will mean more discipline problems. I agree with the second.

 

[cristo]

Congratulations, and welcome to the 21st century.

 

[NobodySpecial]

WWII didn't exactly introduce a completely integrated military

Something of an understatement - the British cabinet office papers were recently declassified showing that there was a huge row between the UK government the US army that who wanted British towns to be segregated along US lines.
The result was a typical British compromise of putting Black and White US units in different areas and letting them out on different nights. But whenever black and white units on leave did meet up there were riots and a couple of deaths.

 

[wuliheron]

Something of an understatement - the British cabinet office papers were recently declassified showing that there was a huge row between the UK government the US army that who wanted British towns to be segregated along US lines.
The result was a typical British compromise of putting Black and White US units in different areas and letting them out on different nights. But whenever black and white units on leave did meet up there were riots and a couple of deaths.

Supposedly Abraham Lincoln once said that he freed the slaves because the majority never would have. Perhaps in another hundred years they might have, but sometimes society requires leadership to push them in the inevitable direction of change and get it over with in order to save everyone a great deal of grief in the long run. The fast track may not be without its own problems, but when the issue is such a contentious one the alternatives can be devastating.

 

[WhoWee]

Since we have always had gay men in the military, I see no reason for special accommodations. If gay and straight boys can share locker rooms in jr. high and high school, and young men can deal with it in college and at gyms, I think soldiers can figure out how to deal with it. To me this concern is just silly.

As for any concerns about sexual activity, that objection assumes that somehow gays will be less disciplined than other soldiers. Whether it be alcohol or other drugs, sex, fighting, rape, or the killing of innocent civilians, discipline and conduct are always concerns. Again, there is nothing new here. A few will violate the code of conduct, which is true with or without gays in the military.

It's doubtful much will change as far as people "asking" or "telling". IMO - this was just another political game - this time at the expense of the gay community. I remember when Clinton started his Presidency with this - everyone seemed to scratch their heads and wonder what he was doing.

 

[Gokul43201]

IMO - this was just another political game - this time at the expense of the gay community.

Is there anything that this administration has done that is not, in your opinion, a political game?

 

[Al68]

Since we have always had gay men in the military, I see no reason for special accommodations. If gay and straight boys can share locker rooms in jr. high and high school, and young men can deal with it in college and at gyms, I think soldiers can figure out how to deal with it. To me this concern is just silly.

Interestingly, Barney Frank http://www.theblaze.com/stories/barney-frank-not-allowing-gays-and-straights-to-shower-together-is-discrimination/" that the only difference is that heterosexuals will now have the advantage of knowing which of their potential shower-mates are gay. Now that took me by surprise, coming from him.

But what's bewildering is that Barney Frank, in the same interview, claims that it would be too disruptive to the military to allow men and women to shower together. Why? What would be disruptive about that?

 

[WhoWee]

Is there anything that this administration has done that is not, in your opinion, a political game?

Actually, I was referring to Congress.

However, since you asked, Obama's extreme left agenda that was rammed through Congress by Reid and Pelosi is certainly not a joke and I wouldn't classify it as a political game. Granted, they did use under-handed tactics and even commented (Pelosi) that we'd know what was in the legislation after it passes. There was no need to read - just vote.

If you want to focus on a specific game played by Obama, the first example that comes to mind would be the constant chant of "Bush Tax Cuts" - right up until Obama wanted to claim them as his own.:uhh:

 

[drankin]

Just watched the movie/documentary Restrepo. It's about soldiers on the front lines in Afghanistan. Good flick and got me thinking on how they will deal with sexual conduct in these remote locations.

So, since there are no women fighting with them, there is no possibility for sex within the unit for heterosexuals. There are likely a few gay men fighting but they weren't allowed to be "open" about it. Now they can be without worrying about expulsion. Now there are going to be more gay men entering the service. How is the military going to address sexual conduct in the field? Because IT IS going to happen. I'm sure it already happens but with more gay men entering the service, it's going to happen even more. We are going to have more young hormone/testosterone laden guys in the middle of nowhere that are sexually attracted to each other. How are they going to be disciplined? If you had to remove guys due to disciplinary action from these small tight units in these remote locations you are going to severely compromise the mission effectiveness IMO based on what I saw in this documentary. Tricky business.

It's going to be a new can of worms IMO. And I'm not against allowing openly gay soldiers into the military, I'm just saying. There's going to be a new chapter of drama in the field.

 

[Gokul43201]

Actually, I was referring to Congress.

So you are of the opinion that this is a political game driven by Congress (even those members of the Republican Party that voted for the repeal). So, let me rephrase my question: is there anything this Congress has done, that is not, in your opinion, a political game? A simple yes or no would do. (I'll ignore the fact that this repeal has been driven by the administration right from day 1).

If you want to focus on a specific game played by Obama,

Please! It is you that has any desire to paint this as a political game, so don't even try to make this look like I'm leading you on. Any SPECIFIC game you want to talk about - and in this case, one that is off-topic - is entirely of your choosing

the first example that comes to mind would be the constant chant of "Bush Tax Cuts" - right up until Obama wanted to claim them as his own.:uhh:

Alternatively, you could look at the opposition talking about the expiration of the tax cuts as Obama's tax raise, until of course, the extension passed, and then there was no desire to call them Obama's tax cuts. Cuts both ways. Irrelevant to the thread either way. I can name other things the administration has done that I'd call a game, but that's irrelevant to the question.

 

[NeoDevin]

But what's bewildering is that Barney Frank, in the same interview, claims that it would be too disruptive to the military to allow men and women to shower together. Why? What would be disruptive about that?

In fact, it may actually increase the number of young men who enlist (maybe women too, I know lots of young ladies who fancy men in uniform)

 

[drankin]

But what's bewildering is that Barney Frank, in the same interview, claims that it would be too disruptive to the military to allow men and women to shower together. Why? What would be disruptive about that?

You're kidding right?

 

[NeoDevin]

And I'm not against allowing openly gay soldiers into the military, I'm just saying

"I'm not racist, but..."

Any such incidents will be (should be?) dealt with the same way heterosexual incidents would be.

 

[drankin]

"I'm not racist, but..."

Any such incidents will be (should be?) dealt with the same way heterosexual incidents would be.

But that wasn't my point. Heterosexuals in the field in these remote locations don't even have the opportunity. So it isn't an issue.

 

[NeoDevin]

But that wasn't my point. Heterosexuals in the field in these remote locations don't even have the opportunity. So it isn't an issue.

That's fine. My point is that there are already procedures in place to deal with these things. Unless you're expressing the opinion that gay men have no self control whatsoever, and if allowed to serve openly, will just spend the whole time having sex and not doing their job.

I'm sure there will be cases, but it won't be the major problem you make it out to be.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's going to be a new can of worms IMO. And I'm not against allowing openly gay soldiers into the military, I'm just saying. There's going to be a new chapter of drama in the field.

There's nothing new about it if you look at militaries around the world that allow gays to serve openly:

Nations that permit gay people to serve openly in the military include the Republic of China (Taiwan), Australia, Israel, Argentina, Canada, all member states of the European Union and every original NATO signatory except Turkey.

That includes:

* 1.1 Albania
* 1.2 Argentina
* 1.3 Australia
* 1.4 Austria
* 1.5 Belgium
* 1.6 Canada
* 1.7 Republic of China
* 1.8 Colombia
* 1.9 Czech Republic
* 1.10 Denmark
* 1.11 Estonia
* 1.12 Finland
* 1.13 France
* 1.14 Germany
* 1.15 Greece
* 1.16 Republic of Ireland
* 1.17 Israel
* 1.18 Italy
* 1.19 Japan
* 1.20 Lithuania
* 1.21 Luxembourg
* 1.22 Malta
* 1.23 The Netherlands
* 1.24 New Zealand
* 1.25 Norway
* 1.26 Peru
* 1.27 Philippines
* 1.28 Poland
* 1.29 Romania
* 1.30 Russia
* 1.31 Serbia
* 1.32 Slovenia
* 1.33 South Africa
* 1.34 Spain
* 1.35 Sweden
* 1.36 Switzerland
* 1.37 United Kingdom
* 1.38 Bermuda
* 1.39 Uruguay

In a comprehensive review of interviews with all known experts on homosexuality in the IDF in 2004, [after a decade of allowing gays to serve openly] researchers were not able to find any data suggesting that Israel’s decision to lift its gay ban undermined operational effectiveness, combat readiness, unit cohesion or morale. In this security-conscious country where the military is considered to be essential to the continued existence of the nation, the decision to include sexual minorities has not harmed IDF effectiveness. In addition, while no official statistics are available for harassment rates of sexual minorities in the IDF, scholars, military officials and representatives of gay organizations alike assert that vicious harassment is rare.

In 2009, the tenth anniversary of the change of law that permitted homosexuality in the [British] Armed Forces, it was generally accepted by all that the lifting of the ban had no perceivable impact on the operational effectiveness on a military that still considers itself world class. The anniversary was widely celebrated, including in the Army's in house publication Soldier Magazine, with a series of articles including the July 2009 Cover Story and articles in all the many national newspapers.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service