The perceptual bias in the [DADT] testimony to date is focusing on the risks and costs of changing the status quo.  Will unit cohesion be compromised?  Will the change undermine national security during wartime?  This partially misses the point:  the status quo is undermining national security far more than any change.  The rigorous enforcement of DADT is preventing competent and patriotic soldiers from serving their country, particularly in high-demand positions like, say, Arabic translators.  It's fine to say that repealing DADT might have some costs — but those costs have to be weighed against the costs of continuing as is.  And from what I read, those costs are serious to the country and debilitating to the affected soldiers.