Guest Blog by Matthew Padilla: Support Our Troops on Independence Day ... All of Them

This is a guest blog by Matthew Padilla, who is a law student at American University Washington College of Law, a former active duty Navy Lieutenant, and a native New Mexican from the South Valley/Valle de Atrisco. He is also a graduate of Rio Grande High School, and the University of Notre Dame. You can Friend him on Facebook or Follow him on Twitter (@matthewpadilla).

If you have not done so, I recommend walking around the New Mexico Veterans Memorial in Albuquerque, or any other similar memorial, on this 4th of July weekend. My wife and father visited the Albuquerque memorial for the first time about three weeks ago and we were all left in awe. I give credit to John Garcia’s vigilant work as Secretary of New Mexico’s Department of Veterans Services, and to all my fellow veterans for ensuring that New Mexico remains a place where this history can be preserved and recognized. The Veterans memorial offers a place for reflection, healing, and understanding of the ultimate sacrifices many Americans have made in the armed forces.

While the New Mexico Veterans Memorial in Albuquerque tells a tale about our service members’ life in combat, it does not delve much into their lives after the peace treaties were signed. In some wars our veterans were treated as heroes upon returning. In others, such as Vietnam, their recognition arrived late, and too many were subjected to ill treatment by their fellow Americans. Overall, the history of veterans who returned home was a mixture of both positive and negative reactions. In the present era, for most veterans, the treatment and reception upon returning home has been remarkably positive. However, for a smaller minority of veterans, that reaction has been muted by the loss of their ability to serve due to the policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Through research and reflection the battles that occurred after military arms were laid down can be recalled. We should not forget that the post World War II generation of American Indians, Hispanics, African Americans, and other minority groups all faced considerable challenges even after returning as decorated heroes. These battles occurred at home, and the service members of these battles were an organized citizenry armed with their voice, their writing, and each other. The fronts were predominantly ideological and legal in nature, but dangerous because of the occasional breakdown into repressive violence brought upon them by those opposed to the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees. The fight for civil rights would shape the post World War II domestic agenda, as men and women fought for legal recognition of their inalienable rights. The same rights they had fought to preserve against tyrannical powers on the battlefield.

The progress of liberty, albeit sometimes slow, is a cause that continues today. Today the homosexual community is trying to extend the light of liberty into the shadows of their legal separation, so that they may become full members of the American promise. They continue to fight for our American ideals in our armed forces, only to return home to a society where they lack legal recognition of their equal protection rights. Oftentimes their service to our country is not even respected ... unless they keep who they are secret. The inherent problem of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is that it is a form of segregation in our armed forces, and like other similar forms of segregation, offensive to the Constitution.

Much has been said recently about gay service members such as Air Force Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, Army Captain James Pietrangelo, and Army First Lieutenant Dan Choi. These three men are examples that being gay does not affect the performance of the soldier, sailor, marine, or airman. However, they are only the tip of the iceberg of homosexual service members who have honorably served their nation. Over 13,000 men and women have been discharged since the policy went into effect. They have been discharged not for cause or poor conduct, but for no other reason than the existence of an unjust law which prohibits their honorable contributions to our country.

While the Supreme Court recently chose not to hear the case of Captain Pietrangelo, it is important to remember that we have been down this path before. In United States v. Virginia the Supreme Court struck down the Virginia Military Institute’s (VMI) discriminatory exclusion of women from military training in a 7-1 decision (Justice Thomas recused himself). Justice Ginsburg, writing the majority opinion, wrote that since the 1971 case of Reed v. Reed:

... the Court has repeatedly recognized that neither federal nor state government acts compatibly with the equal protection principle when a law or official policy denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature – equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities.

While the case deals specifically with the gender issue of women in the service, the underlying philosophy and legal guarantee of equal protection is exactly what the homosexual community is fighting for. I would argue that by being denied the ability to serve openly, homosexuals serving in the military are being denied their “full citizenship stature,” just like the women who went to the courts to gain entrance to VMI.

I must admit that as a teenager I had been convinced by the Generals and Admirals and all the other experts who argued that homosexuals should not serve openly in the military because they would disrupt unit cohesion. Fortunately, like other poor conclusions I may have made in high school, I am not repeating this one. After serving in the Navy, onboard ships where women also serve, I have come to two conclusions. First, there are issues of accommodation and culture that need to be rectified in order for men and women to serve together. Second, those issues can be successfully solved via vigilant leadership. I do not doubt that there may be some challenges when homosexuals are finally allowed to serve openly. However, just as the military has faced previous challenges, I am sure, as is former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John M. Shalikashvili, and many others, that the armed forces will adapt to these challenges as well.

Fortunately for the United States, the world has already done the test work for us. Homosexuals already serve with dignity in foreign militaries, and the facts show that the myth that homosexuals will severely disrupt unit cohesion is not based on any sort of reality. In fact, with the dismissal of decorated and well trained service members, including many translators who are in short supply, the dismissals are actually harming our security. If there is not a real threat to unit cohesion and national security, then it must be asked, why the opposition?

Our Independence Day is synonymous with the cry for liberty, and the ideals of our entire nation. While the seeds of liberty were laid in 1776, those ideals still need tending today. The men and women of the armed forces, who have too often given their lives in defense of our American ideals, have done so with courage and honor. These men and women are heterosexual and homosexual and as ethnically diverse as our country ... more importantly, they are all fighting for the American ideals of liberty, and they are all members of the human race. We should judge their service not by their color, gender, or sexual orientation, but by their contributions to our great nation. Happy Independence Day!

This is a guest blog by Matthew Padilla. If you'd like to submit a piece for consideration as a guest blog, contact me by clicking on the Email Me link on the upper left-hand corner of the page.