I’ve got something for you to think about. Don’t run out and try it, this is a thought experiment, something for you to just think about.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) is currently not enforcable, and the Pentagon has decided that currently, recruiters can accept applicants who volenteer their sexuality. However, if DADT is reinstated, then not only would recuiters stop doing so, but those who have done so could lose their opportunity to serve in the military. So, here is where the thought experiement comes in.
Bobby is 18 and gay. He goes to his local recruiter’s office and signs up. He lets it slip that he has a boyfriend. Because DADT is not enforcable, the recruiter preocesses the paperwork. Three years pass by, and DADT has gone to the United States Supreme Court. The USSC decides that serving openly in the armed services is a priviledge. Not disclosing sexuality is an appropriate way to keep all people treated equally.
Aside from his first slip of the tounge, Bobby hasn’t talked about his loved ones or his sexuality. No one besides the recuiter and Bobby knows he’s gay. Could Bobby be thrown out for revealing his sexuality?
I’m guessing there are a few possible scenarios.
1) Bobby’s superiors launch an investigation into his sexuality. They use his statement made during his recruitment as evidence, and he is discharged.
2) Bobby’s superiors launch and investigation into his sexuality. While they can use his statement made during his recruitment as reasonable suspicion, they can’t use it as evidence. They have to do an intensive investigation into his personal life.
3) Bobby’s superiors attempt to launch an investigation, but because his statement did not exclude him from military service at the time, it can’t be used as a basis for suspicion, nor can it be used as evidence. Aside from this one statement, no other credible information is available to point to Bobby’s sexuality. The investigation never gets off the ground.
Scenario 1 is built around the concept that Ex Post Facto (if you do something that is now illegal before it becomes illegal, you can’t be punished for it) doesn’t apply. I’m not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination, so I don’t know if this right is given to him as a member of the military. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be, but I can’t eliminate the possiblity.
Scenario 2 is based on the idea that while EPF is in play, being gay is a continuing state, therefore, while it can’t be used as evidence, it can be used for suspicion. This may just be a lack of general understanding on my part of the law and rights. I acknowledge this, and it is possible this may not be a real possibility.
Scenario 3 is based on the idea that EPF is fully extended to Bobby. It doesn’t matter what was said in relation to his sexuality while DADT wasn’t in effect, it cannot be – not even a little bit, not even at all. This is the scenario that I would think is most possible, and it’s the one I’m most in support of.