Speaking as a current member of the US Military, I have to say I think DADT is one of the stupidest policies ever enacted in the military, for several reasons.
One, a soldier being gay is not going to affect the other soldiers in the unit as much, because of the fraternization policy, which highly discourages if not outright forbids relationships within the same unit (depending on the chain of command between the two soldiers). If, for instance, it was a platoon sergeant and one of the soldiers in his/her platoon, it would be forbidden due to the fact that the platoon sergeant would have nominal command over the soldier, but even if it's a platoon sergeant from one platoon and a soldier from another, there's still an issue because of the rank difference; the platoon sergeant is still nominally in charge of the soldier simply by virtue of rank regardless of the platoon they're in. If it's two soldiers, there's a bit more leeway, but they still forbid it if they're from the same platoon, if I understand the regs correctly. Different platoons within the same company is allowed, but still highly discouraged because of the school of thought that it would be difficult for you to see your loved one potentially going out on patrol to risk their life and could impact your morale and ability to do your job. And if it's an officer and a soldier/NCO; don't even let the thought cross your mind for a split second, because you'd be out so fast your head would spin. I'm aware that there are marriages between an officer and an NCO out there, but if you dig a little deeper you typically find that the marriage occurred when the officer of the pair was an NCO and decided later to go through ROTC or OCS and became commissioned as a result, so it doesn't violate the reg. So the notion that the gay soldiers of the unit would suddenly begin molesting the straight members of the unit simply because they were allowed to be open about their sexual preferences is a fallacious assumption that anyone with half a brain would realize is utterly stupid.
Two, the Army is extremely strict about sexual harrassment of any kind. It doesn't matter if it's an officer on an enlisted, NCO, warrant officer, or another officer, or any combination of the above; it is absolutely NOT tolerated. I realize it isn't reported as often as the Army would like, and often the soldier who does report it feels as though they are being persecuted by other members of the unit as a result, but that is what EO complaints are for, and harassment, either verbal or physical, against a soldier that reported sexual harrassment of some kind will NEVER be tolerated if the command structure does its job properly. So a gay soldier hassling a straight soldier about getting together for some "fun" would fall under the reg same as a straight soldier hassling another straight soldier about getting together for some "fun"; either way, it's not tolerated. Contrary to what some die-hard homophobes may believe, gay people are not trying to force their way of thinking on the rest of us; so as long as you make it clear you are not interested, and follow that up with a report if the gay soldier persists in hassling you, there should be no issue, same as if it were a straight soldier doing the hassling.
Three, I'm well aware that there may be some people in the military who do not like the notion of serving with gays, but that does not mean that they will automatically attack a gay soldier in the unit. Physical or verbal abuse is tolerated about as much as sexual harrassment in the Army; that is to say, not at all. If a gay soldier feels persecuted, they would be able to file an EO complaint same as a straight soldier, and would if necessary be able to take it to trial with JAG of the soldier(s) performing the abuse. If a group of soldiers forgot themselves so much as to actually harm a gay soldier, that is why we have the UCMJ in addition to being subject to federal and state laws as well. The soldiers who caused harm to another simply because they didn't like the sexual orientation of the harmed soldier would have violated several articles of the UCMJ, not to mention violated hate crime laws in the civilian world, and could possibly be tried under both jurisdictions if the military and civilian courts deemed it feasible and just to do so.
I'm not saying it would be easy; it would hardly be a smooth adjustment to make, and like all adjustments, there would be hiccups until things were smoothed out, but the notion that some people have that it would disrupt the workings of the military to allow openly gay soldiers in is just plain stupid. I'm not gay, and I'd be all for it. I hope it does get repealed, along with the outdated notion of chivalry the Army seems to have when it comes to women in the service; I'm tired of the notion that simply because we're women we can't serve in the Infantry or Armor branches. I don't personally want to serve in either, but I'm well aware that there are women in the Army that are both physically and mentally capable of doing so, so this archaic notion that women are unable to meet the physical demands of either of those branches is, to me, utterly stupid. We already have to meet certain physical standards to get into those branches to begin with; if a woman meets those standards and wants to serve in either of the branches, I say let her!
Sorry for the slight derail, but I trust you see where I'm coming from here. There are several other countries in the world that have gays openly serving that have few or no issues, and it's pretty darned obvious to everyone that we already have gays serving in the US military right now, they just can't openly speak about it or risk getting kicked out. We're already stretched thin on resources, and excluding people from serving solely on the basis of something that should have no bearing on their physical or mental capabilities is bloody stupid, in my opinion.
