It seems to me that the situation is something like this: The government steals money and other resources, so that it may set up a variety of programs and nonsense, and is then restrictive about the use of said nonsense. Much like the Mafia in restricting their members to Italians. But what would we think of two people arguing about the mob’s racist policies? “The mob really ought to be more open in their hiring. It’s discrimination!” “No no no. Standards must be kept. Mobsters have difficult jobs. They can’t just let anybody in, or they could never fully trust each other!” The argument seems to miss the real point: The mob is a criminal enterprise to be opposed root and branch. Arguing about the merits of their (non rights violating) practices treats the existence of the mob as a given. But it is the existence of the mob that is the real issue.

My feelings about DADT are that arguments about whether the policy is just or unjust tend to assume the legitimacy (or unavoidability) of the government military. (And I certainly realize you are not doing this.) Keeping or abandoning DADT are both subsets of an unacceptable situation.

Furthermore, would it really be that bad if the military discriminated much more severely? Only white males. Or, even better, only second generation Mongolian-American lesbians. It seems to me that the more restrictive the government is in its hiring, the less employees it will tend to have.