The fact that leading politicians and military figures have raised questions about allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military is not the least bit surprising. Moving away from “don’t ask, don’t tell” to the full inclusion of gay and lesbian service people is a big move, especially for what is a typically slow-moving and conservative institution like the Unites States Armed Forces.
There is no question that for a wide variety of reasons, moving from DADT to full inclusion will challenge many of the assumptions and beliefs of many serving in the military. These are people for whom being gay is as problematic as it is normal for many others.
Given that reality, the questions raised by Sen. John McCain and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, questions about morale and unit cohesion, are real and serious questions which deserve real and serious attention. And like most real public policy questions, there are real answers to be found, if we really want to find them.
The issue is not that the questions are raised, or that those raising them are homophobic or hateful, as is often charged. The issue here is that too often those raising such questions seem to be more interested raising their questions than they are in finding answers to them. They use the question as a deflection from getting solutions, instead of it being the beginning of generating the solutions to their own questions.

Moving forward on this issue will require that both sides take the questions raised more seriously. Not to mention that they are legitimate questions. And before the fur starts flying for some of you, let me explain why.
The legitimacy of a question flows from how real it is in the life of the questioner. Failing to recognize that would simply replace one coercive policy with another. Healthy cultural change comes by a combination of assertive leadership from above, in this case a mandated change in the previous policy, AND real awareness of the needs of the grass roots, even if some of us experience them as crab grass.
For religious leaders, who are especially fond of weighing in on this, that means taking one of two paths regarding this issue: the first would be to come clean and admit that they believe America should be a theocracy, governed by the norms of one particular faith, and the second would be to use whatever faith those leaders follow to help people hear each other’s questions and find mutually satisfying answers.
When faith leaders start thumping their Bibles, Torahs, Qura’ans, or any other sacred text, claiming that theirs is the only way to read it, look out! There are Christian, Jewish and Muslim arguments to be made both against and for the full inclusion of gays in the military. So simply sermonizing about which is “the” right answer isn’t going to help. And since America is not a theocracy, I am not even sure it should matter all that much.
What should matter is how religious leaders can draw on their respective faiths to help military personnel serve with both personal religious integrity and genuine respect for their fellow servicemen and women. When it comes to caring for the sick, the wounded and the dead, that is what military chaplains have been doing, for the most part, for generations. Now it’s time to do the same thing each and every day – not simply waiting for those moments which are so big and painful that debating policy makes no sense.
America and Americans will get through this process only when we decide that the real life issues for the people directly involved are more important than the social policy preferences and personal faith interpretations of the rest of us. When that happens, we will do what we have always done in this country – continue expanding opportunity for all people whether we agree with them or not, while maintaining the right to voice our concerns in ways that do not limit their access to opportunity. That’s America at its best, and it always has been.