In 1993, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was enacted, barring those of openly non-heterosexual orientation from serving in the armed forces. The policy was originally created to stifle the witch-hunt for homosexuals serving in the military, but instead has become a tool for sniffing out the very people it was made to protect.

Should a commanding officer find you guilty of engaging in, considering or, in some cases, even speaking about a non-heterosexual act, the consequence is an immediate discharge.

DADT is a misconstruction at its root. The title refers to the policy itself, which states that those in the armed forces are not to question each other’s sexual orientation, nor are they to express their own. Sure, this might prevent many situations of harassment and eliminate specific biases to create a more conducive army environment. On the other hand, it advocates infringing on the rights of non-heterosexuals.

The justification for this policy is ridiculous. The common argument is that homosexuals are incapable of serving their country because they cannot withhold their sexual deviancies while surrounded by those of the same gender. Apparently, if one is even inclined to prefer the same sex, that individual must automatically abandon all self-respect and control, like vampires at a blood bank or alcoholics at a fully stocked bar.

What, then, is the solution? Threaten those who are different so they must either  hide in their “closets” or face the consequences?

Let’s call this what it truly is: discrimination at its core. DADT policy is homophobic and bigoted because it singles out a particular type of person, making that person a target for harassment, assault and blatant humiliation.

When last polled in 2009, a total of 13,000 soldiers were discharged due to the DADT policy, and the number is increasing to this day. The year with the highest number of discharged soldiers was 2001, when the United States initiated its War on Terror. Perhaps the average gay American soldier was incapable of restraining his or her sexual urges while invading the Middle East. Or, more likely, the decrease in discharges over the following years displayed the armed forces’ desperation for troops.

The policy has been under fire from a large number of groups, including the American Psychological Association and various gay rights organizations, since its inception. The APA has released several statements that contradict the typical rationale for DADT. In fact, they maintain that there is no evidence showing that being gay, lesbian or any other non-heterosexual orientation has any detrimental effect on a soldier’s ability.

Recently, the idea of repealing the policy was brought up in the Senate. A filibuster led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speedily swept the possibility underneath the legislative rug. Four more votes were needed to end the filibuster, which would have allowed the bill repealing DADT to progress further through the legislative process. The shortfall was a major upset for the liberal lobbyists pushing the bill and supporters of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community.

Equality and free speech are two fundamental tenets that founded the United States. If all people are created equal and are free to express themselves, then how can a policy exist that contradicts our country’s most important convictions by treating homosexuals as secondhand citizens?