See, that's where some people view this improperly. Your analogy is: "... NOT BEING ABLE TO SERVE...". So, tell me where in the DADT policy, that is says that a Gay/Lesbian isn't ALLOWED to serve? Now, we can go through all the legalism of DADT, but there's already numerous discussions on that. Plus, you haven't heard me or anyone else say that DADT is good and should remain. My point is; and will continue to be; that this isn't about rights. Even if your analogy about Blacks not being ALLOWED to serve was true, there is no "Right" to serve in the military. There could be discrimination laws and such in violation, but RIGHTS is NOT what it's about.
Just like when you hear the ignorant people speak of: "People have a right to healthcare".... "People have a right to affordable housing"..... Sorry, but NO THEY DON'T!!! Find me where it's a right. We have the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If that means you want to BUY a house or PURCHASE exceptional healthcare, then you should be allowed to do so. But it shouldn't be GIVEN to anyone. Because anything GIVEN to one person, had to be PAID for by another. As such, you are being forced to give away your possessions. I have the RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms. But that doesn't mean the government is going to BUY ME A GUN. When they start using tax payer's money to do that, then they can use some of those taxes for healthcare, housing, etc...
The DADT policy simply states that the government won't inquire about a person's sexuality and preferences, and people aren't to speak about and display their sexual preferences. Yes, one preference is "Socially Acceptable" and the other isn't. And that's why the DADT policy should be abolished. But it has nothing to do with rights. The gay person is allowed to serve in the military if they are qualified. If they feel they must tell the world openly of their sexuality, then they are free to leave the military. But serving in the military is not a right, and as such, DADT isn't about rights either.