No gays in the military ... sort of

By Jennifer J. Foster

CNN reports this morning that Obama Administration and Defense Department officials are “outlining potential plans to selectively enforce” the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays in the military.

To wit:

Gates says he is now looking at ways to make the ban “more humane” including letting people serve who may have been outed due to vengeance or a jilted lover ...

Gates indicated he is looking at several options. “Let me give you an example. Do we need to be driven when the information, to take action on somebody, if we get that information from somebody who may have vengeance in mind or blackmail or somebody who has been jilted.“

Yes; by all means, let’s have military policies that are enforced based on the whims of lovers.

Oh, but there’s more:

In addition, Capt. John Kirby, spokesman for Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday the chairman “supports the idea of a less draconian way of enforcing the policy.“

So let me see if I have this right: A closeted gay member of the military who either purposefully or accidentally outed himself would be dismissed, but a closeted gay member of the military outed by a jilted lover wouldn’t?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but couldn’t this lead to some unintended consequences? Under “selective enforcement,“ wouldn’t the military actually be incentivizing jilted-lover outings?

Think about it. Gays who were sick of serving in secret could get non-military friends to out them to superiors in acts of “vengeance.“ It would be a route to living openly without retribution; why wouldn’t they pursue it?

Um, here’s an idea: If you’re trying to find a less draconian way of enforcing the policy, then how about considering a less draconian policy?

Common sense would dictate two choices: Either enforce the no-gays-in-the-military policy, or ditch it. Why isn’t the president taking one of those routes?

It’s pretty plain why the president and his supporters are trying this “selective enforcement” deal. It’s no secret that President Obama has disappointed gay-rights activists who expected him to do so much more for their cause. So here you have another example of him trying to placate them a bit. It’s yet another example of the president’s complete unwillingness or simple inability to take a position, one way or another, on difficult issues.

But you have to ask yourself: Why wouldn’t he just get rid of the policy altogether? Could it really be that the president has been convinced that there is a military component to keeping it?

On the other hand, maybe I’m overreacting. After all, we’re all too familiar with the wild success that selective enforcement of federal laws has provided in other areas.

... Immigration, for example.