In the United States, more than 12,000 service members —
including dozens of highly trained Arabic linguists — have been dismissed since
1994 because it became known they were gay. Current targets for discharge
include a West Point graduate and Iraq
war veteran, Army National Guard Lt. Dan Choi, and a veteran of combat
missions over Iraq and Afghanistan, Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach.

In Britain, on the other hand, gay and lesbian service
members marched in crisp uniforms in the annual Pride London parade July 4. Gay
Australian soldiers and sailors had their own float in Sydney's Gay Mardi Gras
parade. In Israel, the army magazine earlier this year featured two male
soldiers on the cover, hugging one another.

America's "don't ask, don't tell" policy — which prohibits
gays from serving openly in the armed forces — is the target of intensifying
opposition, and President Obama says he favors lifting the ban. But he wants to win over
skeptics in Congress and the Pentagon, and a fierce debate lies ahead that will
inevitably touch on the experiences of allied nations that have no bans.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, the first Iraq war veteran elected to
Congress, has just launched a campaign for a bill to repeal "don't ask, don't
tell." He observed British troops in Iraq operating smoothly with a serve-openly
policy and bristles at the contention that America's armed forces would suffer
morale and recruiting problems if they followed suit.

"I take it as a personal affront to our warriors," said the
Pennsylvania Democrat. "To say that other countries' soldiers are professional
enough to handle this and American soldiers aren't is really a slap in the
face."

Those seeking to preserve the U.S. ban question whether the
allies' experiences have been as smooth as advertised and depict America's
military as so unique that lessons from overseas should be ignored anyway.

"We are the military leaders in the world — everybody wants
to be like us," said Brian
Jones, a retired sergeant major who served in the Army Rangers. "Why in the
world would we try to adjust our military model to be like them?"

With such polarized views as a backdrop, Associated Press
reporters took an in-depth look at how the militaries of Israel, Britain and
Australia have managed with serve-openly policies, and interviewed partisans on
both sides of the debate in the United States about the relevance of those
experiences.

Israel:

A nation in a constant state of combat readiness, Israel
has had no restrictions on military service by gays since 1993 — a policy now
considered thoroughly uncontroversial.

Gays were permitted to serve even before then, but not in
certain intelligence positions where, at the time, they were deemed possible
security risks vulnerable to blackmail. Now, gays and lesbians — among them
several senior officers — serve in all branches of the military, including
combat duty.

"In this regard, Israel has one of the most liberal armies
in the world," said Yagil Levy, a sociologist from the Open University of Israel.

The army recognizes the partners of gay officers as their
bereaved next-of-kin after their deaths, eligible for benefits. Gay officers at
promotions and other ceremonies often have their partners by their sides.

Maj. Yoni Schoenfeld, a gay officer who is the editor of
the military magazine, Bamahane, said there was very little friction in the
ranks related to gay soldiers.

He served as a combat soldier and as commander of a
paratrooper company, and said his sexual orientation — though known to fellow
soldiers — was never an issue. Gay jokes would sometimes surface, unusually not
malicious, he said, while receptiveness to gays in combat units could vary.

"If you're gay and live in the 'manly' world, there are no
problems," he said. "Those who are more feminine in their speech and appearance
have a harder time fitting in."

He sympathized with gays in the U.S. military who don't
enjoy the same liberty he did.

"There shouldn't be a problem with it," he said. "It's the
nature of man, and when you allow it to happen (serving openly), it's not a
problem anymore."

Schoenfeld's magazine has reflected the evolving attitudes.
In 2001, it was shut down briefly after featuring an interview with a retired
colonel who had come out of the closet. Yet this year, there was no adverse
reaction to the cover picture of two male soldiers embracing.

A gay magazine, meanwhile, named a major as its "man of a
year" a few years ago; he continues to serve without harm to his career.

The military also provided the backdrop for Israel's
precursor toBrokeback Mountain— the 2002 movie Yossi &
Jagger about two Israeli combat soldiers who fall in love on the front
lines. It was a hit with critics and the public, and was even screened on
military bases.

Australia:

Back in 1992, Anita Van Der Meer was threatened with
discharge from the Australian navy for being a lesbian. She denied the charge to
save her job — and later that year the military's ban on gays and lesbians was
lifted.

This spring, Van Der Meer marched proudly with more than
100 other service members in Sydney's annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade
under an Australian Defense Force banner. Even a general joined the march.

Now a chief petty officer, Van Der Meer was a junior sailor
in 1992 when someone reported she was engaged in a same-sex relationship.

"It was very traumatic for me, but I still had the
cooperation of my supervisors and my peers," said Van Der Meer, 41. "In the end,
I had more support than I expected."

Chief Petty Officer Stuart O'Brien, who joined the navy 19
years ago, said being openly gay has not been an issue, even when working
alongside U.S. military personnel in Baghdad in 2006.

"They valued the work that I did and that's all that it
comes down to at the end of the day," O'Brien said. "Sexuality has nothing to do
with anything any more within the services."

The lifting of the ban on gays was preceded by years of
heated debate, yet the change itself was relatively uneventful aside from a few
unexpected coming-outs of high-profile commanders.

"Everyone said, 'Good heavens, that's a bit of a surprise'
and after five minutes the conversation reverted back to football," said Neil
James of the Australian Defense Association, a security think tank. "After a
while it was met with a collective yawn."

Among opponents of the change at the time was Australia's
main veterans group, the Returned and Services League, which has now withdrawn
its objections.

The league's president, retired Maj. Gen. Bill Crews, said
concerns about lowered morale and HIV transmission on the battlefield had proved
ill-founded.

"I was there in the early days of it. ... I thought there'd
be a continuing problem because of prejudice that exists in parts of the
community," Crews said. "I don't see any evidence now that homosexuals are in
any way discriminated against. ...A homosexual can be just as effective a
soldier as a heterosexual."

Some skepticism lingers, however.

Brig. Jim
Wallace, who commanded an elite Special Air Service mechanized brigade until
retiring in 2000, argues that gays and women should be barred from combat
roles.

"Do you want an army which is already likely to be
outnumbered wherever it fights to be fighting at its most effective or its least
effective?" Wallace asks. "If you want to sacrifice fighting effectiveness for
political correctness, then all right, go ahead."

He referred to the traditional 10-soldier units commonly
deployed in Australian combat forces.

"Now if you introduce into that 10 men a love or lust
relationship, you immediately damage the phenomenon of mateship," he said.
"There is some discrimination that has to be done to maintain the effectiveness
of society or the effectiveness of fighting units."

Britain:

British policymakers had been wrestling for years with
whether to scrap a long-standing ban on gays in the military — but the pivotal
decision was made abroad, by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg,
France.

The court ruled in 1999 that Britain had violated the
rights of four former service members who were dismissed from the military for
being gay and lesbian.

King's College professor Christopher Dandeker said there
had been significant opposition to the change among military officers. There
were predictions — not borne out — that unit cohesion would suffer and that
large numbers of personnel would leave the military if gays could serve.

Once the ban was lifted, Dandeker said, the opposition
dwindled, and the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair embraced the chance to be seen as a
beacon of tolerance.

Lord Alan
West, former head of the Royal Navy and now Britain's terrorism minister,
served before and after the ban was lifted.

"It's much better where we are now," West said in an
interview at the House of Lords. "For countries that don't do that — I don't
believe it's got anything to do with how efficient or capable their forces will
be. It's to do with other prejudices, I'm afraid."

As for Britain's trans-Atlantic ally: "I think the
Americans really need to make the move," West said.

Peter Tatchell, a London-based gay-rights activist often
critical of the government, praises the military's handling of the change.

"Since the ban has been lifted, there hasn't been a word of
complaint from senior military staff," he said. "They've said that having gay
and lesbian people in the services has had no damaging effect at all."

Mandy McBain joined the Royal Navy at age 19, in 1986, at
the most junior rank possible. Now a lieutenant commander, she remembers what it
was like to serve when being a lesbian had to be a secret.

"It's exhausting," she said. "It's quite incredible to look
back and see how much time and energy I spent leading a double life."

In one past assignment, she processed the paperwork of
comrades being dismissed because of their sexuality. "That," she said quietly,
"I found very difficult."

Military expert Amyas Godfrey of the Royal United Services Institute, a London think tank, was
serving with the British Army in Northern Ireland when the policy changed.

"I remember our commanding officer at the time called the
entire battalion together and said, 'This is how it is going to be now. We are
not going to discriminate. We are not going to bully. If someone in your group
says that he is gay, you treat them as normal,"' Godfrey recalled.

"And that, really, was the implementation of it. For all
the years I served after that, it was never an issue."

United States:

For those in the U.S. military community who oppose letting
gays serve openly, there's a widely shared sentiment that America has nothing to
learn from the roughly two-dozen nations that have no bans.

"Who's the only superpower military out there?" argued Maj.
Brian Maue, a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, in a debate in June at the McCormick
Freedom Museum in Chicago. "This is hardly convincing to say, 'Ah, the others
are doing it. We should too."'

Maue — who says he's been speaking out on his own, not as a
military spokesman — suggests that repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" would
prompt straight service members to complain of privacy violations and "dignity
infractions."

"An openly gay military would be the heterosexual
equivalent to forcing women to constantly share bathrooms, locker rooms and
bedrooms with men," he wrote in a New York Times online forum.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, another supporter of
the ban, contends that some field commanders in nations that allow gays to serve
openly have resorted to "tacit discrimination" — excluding them from front-line
units for fear that problems would surface in rugged, close-quarters living
conditions.

Maginnis also cited America's multiple overseas
missions.

"You have a large part of the world with no tolerance for
open homosexuality, and if we were to deploy there, it would be a serious
problem," he said.

Repealing the ban would trigger the departure of some
career service members who object to homosexuality and deter some people from
enlisting, said Maginnis. "It doesn't matter what general population thinks —
it's what the young people who have a propensity to enlist think."

Prominent advocates of open service for gays and lesbians
acknowledge there would be some hitches, but predict the overall change would be
smooth and professional.

"There's been very little trouble in the nations that
lifted their ban on gays," said professor David Segal, director of the
University of Maryland's Center for Research on Military Organization. "My guess
is there will be slightly more in the U.S. — we have a somewhat higher level of
intolerance."

However, Segal doubted the change would spur a large exodus
from the military or hamper recruitment.

"There will be some gay bashing at the unit level, and that
will be a problem in the short run for NCOs and junior officers," he said. "But
they will deal with it, just as they dealt with racial integration and gender
integration."

Nathaniel Frank, a research fellow at the University of California, Santa Barbara's Palm Center and
author of a book on "don't ask, don't tell," says his studies of allied nations
suggest that lifting the ban in the U.S. would not impair overall military
effectiveness.

"There will be some forms of de facto discrimination and
prejudice — a policy change is not going to wipe that out of people's hearts and
minds overnight," he said. "But more and more people in the military are seeing
it doesn't serve them to have this policy in place."

There's no question, Frank said, that the U.S. military is
unique — the most powerful in the world. But he said it should be embarrassing
that "our allies can tell the truth about gay soldiers and the U.S. stands with
China, Iran, North Korea among the nations that can't."

The key to a smooth transition, Frank added, is emphatic
direction from top commanders and the adoption of a code of conduct that would
deter disciplinary problems by spelling out unacceptable behavior.

Dan Choi, the gay lieutenant facing dismissal from the
Army, says the current "don't ask" policy is disruptive — forcing the gays who
are serving to be furtive and dishonest.

"Closeting is what causes instability," he said. "It's the
most toxic poison."

As for the U.S. being different from its allies, Choi
agrees.

"We are exceptional — because we take the lead on things,"
he said. "To me, it's an insult to the idea of American exceptionalism to say
we're somehow scared of gays."