The Long Road to Equal Opportunity in the Military for Gays and Lesbians

The Long Road to Equal opportunity in the Military for Gays and Lesbians

In 1941 the department of defense, in combination with the psychiatric community, defined any sexual orientation outside of heterosexual as a mental illness. Homosexuals were labeled with one of three disorders; psychopaths, sexual perverts, and paranoid personalities (Kaiser, 1997, p. 29).

After World War II, the United States Military began discharging Gays, Lesbians, Transgender, and Bi-Sexual’ (GLBT) completely deleting their opportunity to serve, giving them discharges and canceling any support of military benefits and marking their personal records, thus hindering them from possible employment in the civilian sector. The military implemented training, “mandatory lectures on the pathology of homosexuality were instituted for new military troops.” During this time the military had discharged over 1000 gays and lesbians per year and by the mid 1950’s had doubled that number (Morrow, 2001, p. 156).

In 1992 immediately after his election, President Clinton set out to draft a new policy that would put an end to the discrimination against GLBT who were serving in the military. His push for equality was met with a strong resistance from lawmakers like Joint Chiefs of Staff and prominent members of Congress like Sam Nunn. Nunn was pushing to maintain the current policy of asking any possible recruits if they have or will in the future engage in homosexual acts, if they replied yes, they were instantly disqualified from the process (Belkin, 2003).

Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly denounced the military’s treatment of homosexuals to be unacceptable on the grounds that just a few years before these same homosexuals were thrown into harm’s way because their country needed them. Once the war ended, when they were no longer needed, they were discharged on the basis of their sexual orientation (Clinton, 2003, p. 240).

The equal rights system was built upon the assumption that governments are morally required to encourage conditions in which human rights laws are followed and enforced. This would give every person the freedom of violations of basic human rights from other individuals or the government itself (Wetzel, 2001, p. 15).

Multiple studies have shown that a large number of gays and lesbians have historically served in the U.S. Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines and Air Force. Supporters of DADT made claims that “The official justification for the current policy is the unit cohesion rationale, which states that military performance would decline if known gay and lesbian soldiers were permitted to serve in uniform”, according to Belkin (2003, pp. 108).

Upon review of this data there are large amounts of data were presented that actually refute that claim. A study entitled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity?” This study, examined these issues in the armed forces of Canada, Australia, Great Britain, and Israel, where gays are permitted to openly serve. After interviews of military experts and over the findings were complete disproval and alienation of any support for the major fallacies claimed. “Not a single one of the 104 experts interviewed believed that the Australian, Canadian (lifted ban in 1992), Israeli, or British (lifted ban in 2000) decisions to lift their gay bans undermined military performance, readiness, or cohesion, led to increased difficulties in recruiting or retention, or increased the rate of HIV infection among the troops” (Belkin, 2003, pp. 109-110).

John Rawls wrote of a “veil of ignorance” under the “original position,” is where social standings and labeling are ignored and the policy maker presents them self with social goals to be obtained in the most neutral approach possible. Many of these policies are not of the veil of ignorance, rather a result of religious pressures in the founding of most social justice theorists. Plato, Aristotle and Immanuel Kant define homosexual acts are manifestly unworthy of human being and immoral. Consequently, those who found themselves to be members of plagued groups would have the same social rights delivered to those who were not oppressed (Sandel, 2007, pp. 3).

Certain countries allow homosexuals to serve but do so in a manner that would arguably not be legally allowed in the United States. For example, some countries allow open homosexuals to serve, but they can "opt out" of such service if they choose (e.g., Netherlands). Other countries allow homosexuals to serve, but their promotion opportunities may be limited (e.g., Germany). Some countries have religious and/or other principles that prevent openly homosexual individuals from serving (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran) (Congressional Digest, 2010, pp. 103-107)

In the Provisions of the U.S. Code, it states in extreme detail:

The United States' is found in the U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 654, as follows: (a) Findings — Congress makes the following Endings: (1) Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. (2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces (United States Code of Federal Regulation).

This is not a matter of homophobia, it in fact infringes on the privacy of the existing members. The Policy Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was a good policy because it gave no one the right to ask if a member is homosexual or heterosexual. The member cannot openly express, and it doesn’t matter heterosexual or homosexual. This allows everyone the same right that sexual preference has no place in the military. As a U.S. Marine, I know firsthand what it's like to be forced to change your ways because suited bureaucrats behind desks, completely out of harm’s way, make judgment calls. The military is not a place for social experiments and serving is a privilege, not a right. People are rejected from joining the military for many reasons, including having flat feet. If a person doesn’t make the height and weight cutoff or can’t pass a physical fitness test they aren’t allowed to serve.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell, who no doubt knows something about racial refinement, made the correct difference in a reply to former Rep. Pat Schroeder during indication before the House Armed Services Committee in 1992 when she maintained that point. "Skin color is a benign no behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument," he said. The reason for rejecting open homosexuals from the military has zero to do with equal rights. There is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The chief thought must be military effectiveness (Congressional Digest, 2010, pp. 108-109).

In closing I would like to point out that gays, lesbians and transgender people make up 3% of the population in the United States. However, more than eight percent of sexual attacks in the military are homosexual. This is nearly three times what would be anticipated. If the probability of homosexual assault is equivalent to the likelihood of homosexual behavior in the population as a whole, we would imagine less than three percent of a sexual assault case in the military to be homosexual. This, however, is not what Department of Defense data reveals, the FRC has studied the “case synopses” of all 1,643 reports of sexual assault conveyed by the four branches of the military for Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). The astonishing finding was that over eight percent of all military sexual assault cases were homosexual in nature. This suggests that homosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to compel sexual assaults than heterosexuals are, comparative to their numbers. And they weren’t even legitimately permitted to be enlisted, not that things have changed it’s very possible that number will go up with the inhabitants of homosexual participants. But then again maybe it will go down as a result. Either way, the focus of our decisions made for the military should involve making the men and women overseas the most comfortable. If it neglects the idea of comfort to the members overseas in any way, it shouldn't be implemented. And the military is not game and should not be treated as some propaganda or social experiment (Belkin, 2011).

Barry Goldwater, an icon of the American Right, sums it up with eloquent simplicity when he says, “You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country; you just need to shoot straight (Clinton, 2003, p. 242).”

References

Belkin, Aaron. "Spam Filter: Gay Rights and the Normalization of Male-Male Rape in the U.S. Military." Radical History Review 100 (2008): 180-185. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 Oct. 2011.

Belkin, Aaron. Embser-Herbert, Melissa Sheridan. "A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Flawed Rationale for the Exclusion of Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military." International 26 Oct. 2011.

Clinton, Hillary Rodham. (2003). Living history: Hillary Rodham Clinton. New York: Simon & Schuster

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell Law." Congressional Digest 89.4 (2010): 108-109. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 Oct. 2011

"Homosexuals in the Military." Congressional Digest 89.4 (2010): 103-107. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 Oct. 2011.

Kaiser, C. (1998). The Gay Metropolis: The landmark history of gay life in America since World War II. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company

Morrow, D. (2001). Older gays and lesbians: Surviving a generation of hate and violence. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 13(1/2), 151-169.

Sandel, M. J. (2007). Justice: A Reader (2007) New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Security 27.2 (2002): 178-197. Military & Government Collection. EBSCO. Web.

.

United States Code of Federal Regulation. U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 654(Old & Revised)

Wetzel, J. (2001). Human rights in the 20th century: Weren’t gays and lesbians human? Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 13(1/2), 15-31.