Doesn't the fact that the rhetoric was out of control lend itself very strongly to the idea that repeal was the right choice?

"In a study a few months ago, the Pentagon affirmed Moskos’s research, finding that “approximately 85% of discharges for homosexual conduct have been made on the basis of statements by the Service member.”"

That is not the same thing as a gay servicemember going up to a commanding officer and saying "I'm gay." Almy's emails could also be deemed "statements by the Service member." And the arbitrariness of the policy was one of its biggest problems - of course gay servicemembers would fear a "knock at the door", especially when they knew it could come at any minute and the absence of a knock - regardless of how many colleagues knew - meant nothing, ultimately, in terms of whether they'd be discharged.

So sounds like DADT repeal is a good thing to deal with those cases of injustice that do exist, even if they aren't as wide-spread as reported. Sounds like it will remove a loop-hole that military members, gay and straight, could potentially use to get our of their commitment. And it sounds like DADT repeal will be a non-event, as "Most of my military friends describe a world in which gays serve alongside straights in a workaday manner". So sounds like win-win, all around. Why then such little support here at National Review, other than a few brave posters and an occasional contributor's off-the-cuff remark that they support DADT repeal, but then decline to to do a full feature on it? DADT repeal is a GOOD thing for America, convervative or liberal.

"Last week, Politico ran an opinion piece citing the “fearful reality of what it means to live under this law,” as if gay and lesbian servicepeople spent their lives fearing a knock on the door."

Maybe not, but they probably *were* in danger of having their feelings hurt. And in this hypersenstive, adolescent society of ours, that's all it would take.

This post would have done well to point out some of the rhetoric on the right. Louie Gohmert says our civilization is about to collapse. John Kyl, paragon of moderate rhetoric, says that reform will kill our troops. The Family Research Council and the American Family Association say that ending DADT is vile, evil, the culmination of an anti-American plot, an act of anti-Christian bigotry, et al.

So who's rhetoric is out of control again?

What % of that 14,000 were caught doing something that would get them booted even if the person they got caught with was the opposite sex?

The only two gay discharges I was immediately familiar with were two recruits in boot camp at the company next to ours. They got caught "wrestling" in the head by the night watch. "You're outta here." Post DADT? Guess what? Still, "You're outta here."

They'll probably clamp down across the board - meaning heterosexuals caught being frisky on station will get the full spanking - because homosexuals certainly will.

The game has changed. We had a squid in my division that went UA (AWOL) for a week. He had family problems back in Kansas and was denied leave so he, um, left. Excellent sailor and a great guy whom everybody liked. Normally, people who went UA were met with disdain, but his circumstance was real. When he returned and was serving his subsequent 45/45 (45 days restriction to the ship - they confiscate your military ID and you can't so much as take garbage to the pier + 45 days extra duty + cut pay), we hooked him up. Arranged private space and private time for him and his wife when she visited. More than once. I'd do it again, today, but with the assumption that getting caught will henceforth have grave consequences.

"you don't have to tell us, but you do understand that if you're gay you can't enlist"

That is not even close to accurate. The terms of enlistment are nothing like this. And it is very possible for a teenager to enlist before he knows he is gay.

You have to keep in mind that we have an all-volunteer military.

It's true that volunteers sign contracts, and we're not unreasonable in expecting them, in general, to honor their commitments once made. But there isn't, or ought not be, the same stigma to someone who used DADT as an excuse for a change of heart as we attributed to, say, "draft dodgers" during Vietnam. (I'm looking at you, Bill Clinton.)

So DADT affected, at most, a small slice of a small slice of a subset of the population -- those gays who were in, or who were considering joining, the military, AND who wanted to serve "openly" or to remove even the theoretical risk of being discharged after being "outed" by someone else. That's probably a population numbering somewhere above 1000 and less than 10,000. Of course, such statistics are cold comfort if it's YOUR continued service or discharge in particular that's at issue. But the limited numbers of people affected in turn limits -- as a matter of national significance -- the practical importance of the issue.

And yet, on the other hand, those numbers aren't trivial. And opponents' speculation about about potential impairments to the effectiveness of our military are certainly important, since our military's continuing effectiveness in turn could potentially affect everyone in and even outside the U.S.

Nevertheless, I think the major significance of this for the nation will be symbolic. Through action by the legislative and executive branches, the federal government of the U.S. has gone on record in putting an end to a classification of its soldiers based on their sexual preference. I don't agree at all that such amounts to an ENDORSEMENT of homosexuality, but it is indeed a decision to stop a form of categorization that I, and other DADT opponents, believe to be repugnant and the product of fear and ignorance.

Finally: That there's as much inflamed rhetoric as there has been so far indicates that it's an issue on which many people have passionate feelings. That there hasn't been (and, I think, there won't be) any marching on the streets, or even any significant political retribution at the polls in 2012, based solely on this issue is due in part to the comparative legitimacy of legislative/executive judgments on the policy, as opposed to a judicially-imposed policy decision. Even those who oppose the repeal should give due credit to the intrinsic fairness, dignity, professionalism of our military forces as they adapt to the changed rules, however disruptive the change turns out to be.

Watch and see: Whichever way it goes, the SCOTUS' ultimate decision on the Prop 8 case from California is going to generate something like 10 or 100 times as much inflamed rhetoric. And much of that will arise precisely because our courts are the wrong forum for such policies to be decided.

Order66, that's a good argument against a thing you made up.