Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
So says a new poll by Zogby that queried more than 500 veterans from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most important finding:
According to the new Zogby data, however, nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. Of the 20% who said they are uncomfortable around gays and lesbians, only 5% are "very" uncomfortable, while 15% are "somewhat" uncomfortable.
Time for the politicians to catch up to the boots on the ground. (Hat tip to House Blend)
Comments
5% of a sample representative of the human population is close to one estimate of the proportion of the population that is gay; perhaps the 5% "very uncomfortable" with gays are classic cases of macho denial. Being in the military might have driven them into the deepest recesses of the closet, where their self-denial has turned into hate.
Posted by: Chuck | December 20, 2006 9:42 AM
I just posted this elsewhere on the same topic:
My only concern with officially allowing gays in the military is the repeat of incidents that happened in integrated units in WW2 and Korea, where bigoted officers would use their rank and position to put black men into the more dangerous situations and have statistically disproportionate casualty rates.
It's certainly possible, and I'd say probable, that the same could happen with the officers with gay men in their units, intentionally putting them in a position of taking the hits while the rest of the squad goes untouched. With how deep the homophobia goes in, it's also probable that the incidents would be brushed under the rug with no punishments.
Unless the JAG is willing to stand up for equal rights and through independent observers enforce equal treatment, the prejudice that exists will continue, wasting lives.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | December 20, 2006 9:51 AM
And now they are saying that 95% of Americans have premarital sex, a level stable since the 1950s.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19/premarital.sex.ap/index.html
Unfortunately I don't have a subscription to Public Health Reports, so can't access the full article.
Posted by: mah9 | December 20, 2006 10:30 AM
"According to the new Zogby data, however, nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians."
And the longer the tours get, and the shorter the time between tours, and the more stop-loss orders that go out, the higher that percentage will go.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | December 20, 2006 12:18 PM
Most of the work in the military is dangerous. Take a pick from under-trained personnel to unsafe vehicles to unmaintained equipment to ignorant and socially unemployable co-workers to being injected with untested "medicines". Not to mention having really, really fast and sharp metal fragments coming at you at random.
Suppose that the officers are progressive and overcompensate by not sending gays into danger. Think that would be better? As it is there are so many set-asides in the military as a social experiment, that certainly there would be affirmative action programs (quotas) for gays to get promoted.
I think a great many soldiers would welcome the opportunity to lower the discourse into sexual orientation, but the real problems would be in how they handle promotion potential. The undercurrent in the military is the view that it's a merit based system but some other group is getting by through quotas and setasides.
Posted by: Ted | December 20, 2006 3:14 PM
What's the current status of that lawsuit against the DADT system, anyway?
Posted by: Coin | December 20, 2006 3:32 PM
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Be
by Alexander H. Raggio
West Point Military Academy, 2006
BG Adams Award for Outstanding Senior Thesis
Posted by: Rhampton | December 20, 2006 3:59 PM
Ted: I see your point, and honestly, if you are aware that you have a minority and the potential for prejudice (interpreted by outside observers), you automatically become over-analytical in ways that hinder your job.
This I think has been the real reason for even the tolerant to not allow gays in the military: the mental work involved to avoid *appearing* prejudicial (either way - bigots sending gays to dangerous work, or progressives trying to avoid looking like they're bigots sending gays to dangerous work and thus keep gays out of dangerous work unfairly) so interferes with doing the job (sending SOLDIERS to dangerous situations) as to make the process of doing the job unsustainable.
Thus the formation, "don't ask don't tell" - if they don't know you're gay, they can't treat you unfairly (either risk or privilage).
I'm not defending DADT so much as saying why is was the policy chosen: it was easier on the military mindset that simply has to do the job.
And in addition, it only reflects the "dangerous situation" aspect of the military job. DADT may be the only fair way to keeping sexual preference from being an influence on that, but it's absolute application is causing severe shortages in the non-combat job.
A radar operator, a translator, an intelligence operator, a communications man, most naval crewman, most home-based flight-ops people - in none of those will someone's sexuality cause a problem other than harassment.
But then you hit that point - if you want to avoid combat, admit you're gay! (well, it's already a possibility to avoid combat now, but only at the expense of having to leave your military career).
Posted by: Joe Shelby | December 20, 2006 5:27 PM