In the debate over repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, Senators such as John McCain cling to the argument that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military might negatively impact on unit cohesion, and thus on war-fighting capability. The Commander of the Marines, General James Amos, has fueled such claims, suggesting that repealing the policy in a time of war could cause casualties. As the Senate begins its debate on the issue, it is crucial to understand the assumptions and validity of this argument.

The conclusion of the argument is itself tenuous. Over 25 of our democratic allies have changed their policies within the last twenty years to allow homosexuals to serve openly. Comprehensive studies of those militaries, including those of such close allies as Great Britain, Israel, Australia and Canada, have established that the change in policy did not result in any degradation of fighting capability. Moreover, prior to the policy shifts, surveys of military members in many of those countries found that there was strong opposition to the change, and suggested that there would be significant disruption if implemented. In other words, stated attitudes grossly exaggerated the likely impact. Yet the recent Pentagon study of the U.S. military found that 70% of service members already accept the change and think it would have little impact.

But let us assume for the moment, just for the sake of argument, that there might be some disruption to unit cohesion if DADT is repealed. Why would that be? No one suggests that it is because gays and lesbians are inherently less capable of fulfilling their duties or performing combat functions than their straight brothers and sisters in arms. It is not about their conduct at all. It is all about the response of their comrades.

The argument rests on an assumption that the straight members of the military may react with hostility, suspicion, and contempt for openly gay and lesbian members. It is the hostile response of other members that will cause the disruption. And no one makes the outrageous claim that such bigotry and intolerance is itself necessary, or is inexorably linked to other characteristics that are essential for a strong warrior ethos. The assumed intolerance is no different than the prejudices against blacks and women that were overcome by the military in the past. The argument against the repeal of DADT rests not only upon an assertion that there persists a homophobic and intolerant attitude among some elements of the military, but further suggests that we as a country should continue to discriminate against the victims of that bigotry and prejudice, rather than try to change the underlying attitudes. It is no different than the claims raised in a past era that restaurants ought to be able to discriminate against people of color, since accepting them would likely be harmful to business by driving away the prejudiced white customers.

The reality of course is that the military is not nearly as intolerant or bigoted as Senator McCain and others seem to think. The experience of other armed forces, and the recent study by the Pentagon, bear this out. As I have written about elsewhere, I was a naval officer who experienced first-hand the Canadian navy’s response to the reception of women into combat roles at sea, and I can attest to how quickly the military sub-culture can adapt. All the hand-wringing at the time about disruption of unit cohesion had been grossly misplaced.

But even if there was to be some temporary disruption, it is simply odious to argue that the prejudice and intolerance that is the cause of such issues should somehow trump the most fundamental right to equal protection in this country. And when John McCain and others insinuate that the continuation of DADT is just not that big of a problem, he reveals a profound inability to comprehend the values of our democracy. It is akin to saying that being required to sit at the back of the bus is no big deal, that being forced to attend different schools is just not that important.

DADT not only wounds the gays and lesbians being forced to live a lie within the military, or those who are refused entry. It also signals to the nation at large that the country holds homosexuals to be less worthy of the state’s trust, respect, and protection, than everyone else. As such, it does injury to all homosexuals, and ultimately, it does violence to constitutional values of the country. The Senate ought not to accept that a policy that at best offers a highly questionable and marginal benefit to national security, should be maintained when it forces the military as an institution to do such profound harm to the democratic values that America is supposed to represent.

From banking to healthcare, looking to Canada has become fashionable of late. It is also an example on equality rights. I served as an officer in one of the first Canadian warships to deploy with women among its crew. That was only after a spirited campaign waged by the military against the integration of women in combat roles, in part on the basis that they would undermine the cohesion and fighting effectiveness of combat units. There would be privacy issues, sexual tension, an erosion of the essential masculine warrior ethos, and ultimately a degradation of military effectiveness.

All of this was proved false of course. It was proved false again a few years later, in the early 1990a, when the Canadian military was again forced to adhere to the country’s constitutional values and open its ranks to openly gay and lesbian members. To the extent there was any disruption (and most studies have found there to have been none), it was minor and temporary, as the military sub-culture adjusted very quickly to the new reality – a reality that better conformed to the values of the society the military is sworn to defend.

The experience of Canada, Britain, Israel, Germany, Australia, and many other democratic allies of the United States (the troops of which are fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan) have demonstrated that there is no significant impact on military effectiveness by the integration of gay and lesbian troops. Quite the contrary. As with the admission of women, and racial minorities before that, it broadened the recruitment base and increased the number of highly skilled personnel available to the military.

Moreover, to the extent that some think there might still be some disruption of cohesion, it is important to note that the cause would necessarily be the underlying prejudice and homophobia within the military sub-culture. To argue against integration is to suggest that such prejudice should be protected and nurtured. That is profoundly inconsistent with the values of a democracy, and utterly untenable. It was rejected decades ago when the discrimination against non-white troops was terminated.

Even putting aside questions of motive or rationale, the policy denying people the opportunity to serve in the military because of their sexual orientation constitutes unjust discrimination that is entirely at odds with the fundamental right to equal protection. The right to be treated as an equal, and not be discriminated against on the basis of shared but personal characteristics that are tied to one’s sense of identity and dignity, is a right that is at the foundation of all liberal democratic systems, and a bedrock of international human rights.

The violation of that right simply cannot be justified in this context. Not only is there no important purpose served by the policy, given the compelling evidence that integration would have no significant impact on military effectiveness, but the disproportionate harm it causes is extreme. As compared to a marginal and temporary impact at the very most (and most studies of such transitions in other countries demonstrate that there is no impact at all), the discriminatory policy not only injures those gay and lesbian members who are denied entry or are drummed out of the military. Rather, the policy perpetuates the societal prejudice against all homosexuals. The policy effectively communicates to the entire society that homosexuals are less worthy of our respect and concern than the rest of Americans. It signals that gays and lesbians cannot be trusted to serve in the defence of the nation.

But the harm does not even end there. It not only causes egregious harm to all gay and lesbian members of our society, but it erodes the normative power of the right to equality itself, and thereby undermines the very values of our democracy. It casts the United States as a backward nation relative to other liberal democracies in the protection of equality rights, and human rights more generally.

We used to quip in the Navy that “we are here to defend democracy, not to practice it.” Nothing could be further from the truth. A military cannot defend a democracy while doing violence to the democratic values that constitute the very foundation of the nation.