Maybe I should oppose this in theory, but remembering my violent reaction to Raytheon adopting a pride-themed Twitter profile picture earlier this month gives me pause. It subverts the nature of pride to associate it with state violence and the forces that have oppressed it for so long.
I hate to invoke the "horseshoe theory" this, it's applicable here. You have people from the center left to center right broadly saying "the military should be for everyone and it's good that we have people joining from HBCUs, openly gay people serving, trans people joining up again, etc." But you have the far right and far left both agreeing with the premise that "No the military is an oppressive and reactionary force that does exist on one side of the political spectrum. Only right wing goons should be in the military, or at the very least other people should be as invisible as possible."
I've met a staggeringly high number of LGBT people in the military. They're the same as anyone else, regular folks who joined for their own reasons. Some patriotism, some nebulous desire to prove themselves, a lot of wanting a job and a college education. It's unfortunate that people treat their mere existence in the military as "political," a full 10 years after they could start serving openly. And it's unfortunate that they can't display an important aspect of their identity on their barracks window or outside their family home on base, even if this policy is logical overall.