The ban on gays serving in the military is the law, and it's been deemed constitutional by our highest court. The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, however has been found to be unconstitutional. But repealing DADT won't solve the problem of discrimination against gays in our military. Only repealing the law will do that.

DADT came into being as a compromise solution the last time a sitting president (Clinton) moved for a repeal of the ban, in 1993. Last week Congress once again refused to consider changing the law, which essentially states that 1. Gays are unsuitable for military service, and 2. Their presence in the military would undermine operational efficiency, including morale, discipline, unit cohesion, etc.

These assumptions have been challenged. I would argue that there is prima facie evidence that the basis for the ban is invalid. Beyond that, enforcement of the ban creates the operational problems it is supposed to prevent.

Over 13,000 GLBT service members have been discharged under DADT, regardless of their service records and ongoing performance at or above established standards. There are undoubtedly many more GLBT service members who have not been identified, and who continue to serve with undisputed honor.

Elizabeth Witt's case clearly illustrates the disconnect between the current law and the reality on the ground. The court found that Witt's discharge, not her service, resulted in operational disruptions, including morale, discipline and unit cohesion, all negatively impacted by her dismissal. While she served, Witt had a positive impact in all of these areas.

It would appear the ban is based on concerns that are not borne out by actual experience. Given the military's stated purpose to preserve and enhance operational efficiency, experience demonstrates clearly that enforcement of the ban is counter-productive. The logic behind the ban is flawed. Worse yet, the ban amounts to unjustified discrimination against people purely on the basis of sexual orientation.

One key facet in the rationale for the ban is that heterosexual service members will be uncomfortable knowing there are GLBT members in their own units. The possibility of being seen naked by a GLBT service member, who might find you sexually desirable is given as an example.

The fact that there are GLBT members in all branches of our military service is well-established. What this means is that there are already persons of various sexual orientations sharing the military life together, including incidentally some nudity. Despite this fact, the current forces seem to be functioning without difficulty. To what extent would knowing (that a fellow soldier is GLBT) vs. not knowing change what is an already well-established ease and ability to function together among our military personnel? There is one way to find out.

It appears our populace is ready for the undertaking. Surveys and polling of both the general population and the military yield almost identical results, indicating that about three-fourths of all Americans support allowing GLBT people to serve openly in the military.

There is an old proverb that says, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." The ban on gays serving in the military is a perfect example of what happens when this proverb is ignored. It's time to recognize that sexual orientation just is not related to successful performance in the military. Thinking it was, well that was just a mistake. It's time to cut our losses, and put this law in our past, where it belongs.