“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, or DADT, was passed in 1993 by a Congress that had solid Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives, 258 Democrats as opposed to 176 Republicans, and the Senate, 57 Democrats opposite 43 Republicans. Bill Clinton had just won his first term as president. This was not an extreme right-wing government that put DADT in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. The Congress expresses in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 that military service is not a right and that,

Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that–

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

The last part is crucial in understanding why DADT was enacted. Military society is not civilian society. The rules that govern it must be different because the military is expected to do things the public isn’t, like fight a war. I went to my friend, teammate, and United States Marine, Eric Yingling, to inquire more into the strictness of military life. He stated:

“During my time on the east coast, we were required to go out shirts tucked in, belt, and slacks/nicer jeans at all times not in uniform. You couldn’t have ear piercings, tattoos visible above the neck or other ‘individualistic’ qualities. This is all for unit cohesion and stomping out the ‘individual.’ The military doesn’t want individuals nor does it really care about what you think– it wants people to get the job done. They have their rules, and everyone– gay, straight, or other– needs to abide by them and conform. There is no preferential treatment because you are straight or gay. There are even rules to how straight couples should act in public, and especially while in uniform. They are there for a reason, and it isn’t to ban gays. They are allowed to join, and serve (for the same selfless reasons anyone would want to serve, right?) but they don’t get a special marking on their dog tags next to blood type that says ‘gay’ or something. Just as I don’t get one that says ‘straight.’”

Eric was also kind enough to point out that the military enters into the sexual lives of all its personal, he pointed out a passage from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ, that prohibits a certain type of sex.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The military culture is much different then mainstream society. In civil society, a person is not allowed to be restricted from work because they are disabled or have a defect, but in the military they must carefully chose their recruits. I know from personal experience that the United States Military is extremely selective in accepting recruits. I applied to West Point out of high school, earned a Congressional recommendation, but was denied by the Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board, or DoDMERB, because I had corrective heart surgery. Later, I again tried to serve by earning a full scholarship from Army ROTC, but was again prevented from serving my country by DoDMERB due to a problem I had been born with. Eric had a similar story where the U.S. Army was delaying in allowing him to join because when he was twelve his doctor prescribed him a temporary inhaler (2 weeks use) to deal with bronchitis. Despite never having “any breathing issues or anything at all related in the 6 years following,” the U.S. Army was hesitant to recruit.

One must understand that DADT is not a ban of homosexuals serving in the military, but a rule requiring discretion in certain areas of all military personnel’s life to keep unit morale and cohesion at peak levels. If the military was not concerned with the morale and cohesion of its soldiers, wouldn’t that just be a little, well, queer?

President Obama, like President Clinton, decided to focus on providing medical care to all Americans early in the first term of his presidency. Both had sympathetic majorities in the House and Senate. They each faced immediate criticism from conservatives who argued that any plan would impede the patient’s right to choose. Nonetheless, President Obama believes he has learned from President Clinton’s mistakes. This is why he has made sure that pharmaceutical companies are on board with reform. This strategy does not, however, guarantee success. As in 1993, the Democratic Party is not marching in lockstep. Perhaps this is a result of the Democratic leadership deciding to back moderate candidates in the last two elections. This partly explains the slow progress being made by Democrats despite such overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. Even with these setbacks, I don’t think health care reform is doomed and a Republican takeover of Congress in 2010  is not inevitable.

The current state of the Republican Party is quite different from 1993-94. For one thing, they do not have the momentum that the Contract with America gave the GOP before the 1994 midterm election. Some believe the so-called “Purity Test” idea being floated around is similar, but there are important differences. While the “Purity Test,” officially titled “Reagan’s Unity Principal for Support of Candidates,” does point to general statements made by every conservative politician (e.g. smaller government), the Contract with America gave specific actions the Republicans would take if elected, such as hiring an outside firm to audit the federal government for waste and fraud. Also, of the ten items placed on the Purity Test, seven are promises to oppose specific legislation by the Democrats, stating opposition to health care reform twice. The Contract with America, on the other hand, outlined eight specific actions the new Congress would take on its first day, along with ten other “Acts” the Republican Party would strive to make law.

Given the difficulty of predicting the political future, I will make my estimate a conservative one. It is likely that, even after the “Miracle in Massachusetts” (the election of Scott Brown), the Democrats will be able to pass some form of health care reform. The fact that the Democrats still have a strong majority in both legislative houses will favor them, but now Republicans should have enough votes to exert more influence in shaping the legislation (that means you can kiss any dream of a public option goodbye). Ultimately, though, I don’t believe they have enough power to kill all health care reform. Furthermore, I do not believe a Republican seizure of power is inevitable. Although there is a very good chance that the Republicans will tear away a few seats from the Democrats (they did win a Senate election in Massachusetts after all). It’s possible they may even take back the House, but we may very well see legislative power remain with the left for at least a few more years.