US Military Open To Gay Soldiers?
Filed Under (Announcements) by Kevin on 03-12-2010
It didn’t seem so long ago that a court ruled that gay marriages be allowed. It was in August to be exact. The presiding judge wrote on simple sentence that will hopefully someday have profound impact upon America.
“The evidence presented at trial and the position of representatives of the state of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest.”
In many ways, it is a reminder of a line from the January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation address by President Abraham Lincoln:
“And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.”
The gay community is no longer an unknown or a mystery, with many well known celebrities that have shown their pride, including Ellen DeGeneres, Elton John, and Rosie O’Donnell. They are human beings like us, and do not deserve to be treated as second class citizens, much like minorities were treated in the ’60s.
It seems fitting that the line from the Emancipation Proclamation refers to a military necessity for the proclamation. The military of today faces a crisis in terms of meeting recruitment quotas to fill the needs of the military, with more young men and women disillusioned by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others have become aware that enjoying a free education while serving in the National Guard requires payment, the price being active duty service as needed.
With a need to fill recruitment goals, why are a segment of the population being turned away, on the basis of sexual orientation. Men and women in the military are about as likely, if not more likely, to be assaulted sexual by the opposite sex than they are to be assaulted by someone of the opposite sex.
Ultimately, gay soldiers are not going to climb into your bunk or foxhole and rape you. Can it happen? Of course, it has happened to heterosexuals. Does that mean we need to ban heterosexual men and women from the service? When people, irrespective of their sexual orientation or race, are willing to put their lives at risk to defense our country, what right have we to take that privilege away from them?
It reminds me of a quote from Glory, where Denzel Washington’s character, a soldier in the 54th Massachusetts Regiment , states “A black soldier can stop a bullet as good as a white soldier…” The same truth goes for a gay soldier. Soldiering is not for the faint of heart, and if a gay soldier has the courage and fortitude to risk life and limb to protect a country that won’t accept them, they deserve our respect.
(Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AT4RW20101130)
A recent study conducted by the Pentagon found that most in the military do not mind gays serving amonst them, and that they do not feel threatened.
The Pentagon unveiled a study on Tuesday that predicted little impact if the U.S. military ended its ban on gays, bolstering President Barack Obama’s push to get Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by year-end….At least 13,000 men and women have been expelled from the military since “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which allows gays to serve in the armed forces as long as they keep their sexual orientation private, came into force in 1993….The study dismissed as exaggerated notions that ending the ban would lead to overt promiscuity, widespread “effeminacy” among men and “unwelcome advances.” It also opposed separate living quarters or bathrooms for gay or lesbian troops, a possibility raised in the past by some in the U.S. military.
The Pentagon report continued discussing concerns and implications of repealing the ban, and citing concerns:
(Reuters) – A majority of the U.S. military does not object to lifting the ban on gays serving openly in uniform, except for predominantly male combat units which show greater resistance to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a Pentagon study said Tuesday.
It could have a significant impact on President Barack Obama’s push for Congress to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy by year-end. The policy, adopted in 1993, bars gays from openly serving in the military, but allows them to serve as long as they keep their sexual orientation private. Following are some of the report’s key recommendations:
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
Service members expressed concerns about conduct such as public displays of affection, dress, appearance, and violence, harassment, or disrespect between homosexual and heterosexual members.
“We do recommend … that the Department of Defense issue generalized guidance to the Services that all standards of personal and professional conduct must apply uniformly without regard to sexual orientation.”
MORAL AND RELIGIOUS CONCERNS
A large number of service members raised religious and moral objections to homosexuality and some of the “most intense and sharpest divergence of views” were among the roughly 3,000 military chaplains.
The report concluded that Service members already co-exist, work and fight together, despite sharply different religious convictions and values such as on abortion.
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
“We recommend modification to the prohibition on sodomy in Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and a corresponding change to the Manual for Courts-Martial (which implements the UCMJ and provides rules, policies, and procedures for UCMJ prosecutions).”
“Article 125 of the UCMJ treats all acts of sodomy, heterosexual, homosexual, consensual, or otherwise, as punishable conduct.”
PRIVACY and COHABITATION
A number of Service members were uncomfortable about sharing bathroom facilities or living quarters with someone known to be gay or lesbian.
A copy of the s can be found here in PDF format, Report on the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
A poll of the American public also found greater tolerence in their willingness to accept gays in the mliitary.
Most Americans favor allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the U.S. military, a poll released on Monday by the Pew Research Center showed. The poll findings are the latest to indicate public support for a repeal of the 17-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning gays from openly serving in the U.S. military and come a day before a long-awaited Pentagon report on the matter.
Of course, some in the government are not so eager to embrace a change that is long due. Even Arizona Senator John McCain advocated caution, that the military may not be ready for this change.
A top Republican warned on Thursday it might be too soon to end the U.S. military’s ban on gays, as the party geared up to block President Barack Obama’s bid to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy this year. “I am not saying this law should never change. I am simply saying that it may be premature to make such a change at this time, and in this manner,” said Senator John McCain, addressing the U.S. defense secretary and top military officer as they appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee. McCain and some fellow Republicans on the committee also caste doubt on the conclusions and methodology of a Pentagon study released two days ago that predicted little impact if the 17-year-old policy were ended.
Is this true? Are we truly not ready to show tolerence for those who are different? After all, isn’t this country founded on the principle of tolerence? Then again, the United States was virtually last in freeing slaves. It should come as no surprise that other nations openly embrace gay soldiers amongst their ranks. Some of the nations that allow gays to serve are Taiwan, Philippines, and South Korea, to name a few.
NEFF: The Defence Department working group report which was just released on Tuesday here, showed as well the republic of Korea, that South Korea was among the nations that also allowed openly gay service, and this is the Defence Department’s report on foreign military that it used to provide input to members of Congress about the way forward for the US.
LAM: What about Japan? I understand Japan has no rules applying to gay personnel, is that right?
NEFF: Japan and Singapore also fell into sort of an indeterminate or undetermined category for the Defence Department’s review and I think they are seeking further clarification there.
Only time will tell if society and the military have reached a point where we can now accept gays equally within the Armed Forces.
This article was simultaneously published with permission on both www.Military-Discussion.com and www.Issues-Today.com, as the topic is relevant to both websites.
An additional issue besides privacy of service members, remember it is usually an arrest if you enter a woman’s or men’s restroom to gawk if your a member of the opposite sex. A gay or lesbian has free access to gawk under the proposed rules.
The bigger issue is the use of direct transfusions under some combat conditions, don’t ask don’t tell doesn’t answer this issue either. Intraveneus drug users and homosexuals have the greatest risk of transmitting HIV/AIDS, so instead of a rapid death we potentially set the stage for a prolonged and expensive medical condition that normally results in death.
Don’t underestimate the UCMJ issue, how will that be fixed. Are we going to make sodemy okay and leave the rest illegal (just great, you can participate in homosexual sex but not heterosexual) or drop all rules against sex except rape (a different element) illegal. It also begs the issue of superiors placing pressure on subordinates for sexual favors and providing preferential treatment to their lovers (either sex). I had to take action against a supervisor (male) for his relationship with a female subordinate, favoritism in work assignments and complaints about it brought the issue to my attention. In the case of a homsexual relationship, the officer or NCO having to take action or even the complaining personnel are open to claims of anti-homosexual bias. The situation is rife for losing military discipline and morale.
Art
I realize your concerns are serious, but they are the same concerns faced by US military commanders for decades with heterosexual situations, so most of those situations are actually easily rectified by applying the same rules towards homosexuals as they would be applied towards heterosexuals. So there would be no need to change the Uniform Military Code of Justice.
As far as direct transfusions, I don’t know if they do that in the field. They would usually use IV packs and/or blood packs? As far as gawking, homosexuals are no different form heterosexuals. Not all men gawk at women, and besides, I’m sure men AND women look at each other regardless if they are heterorsexual or homosexual, since they like to compare their own bodies to others.
Kevin,
Sodomy is a specific offense under the UCMJ and having sexual relations with a woman other than your wife is also (not often enforced), so there will have to be a major change. The whole article would have to be deleted, or as I said you have the insane situation where homosexuals can have sexual relationships and heterosexuals could not. A great morale builder where one person has greater rights than another.
As to direct blood transfusions, there is no way that combat units can carry any supplies that need refrigeration. I am not saying that this is a common practice, but rather one which is planned.
I repeat the two that you didn’t answer, homosexuals (either flavor) using the showers or bathrooms to satisfy their sexual urges. Yes every man doesn’t look at women, but the law still does not allow men in a woman’s bathroom or shower or vice versa. What this does, is removes any justification for those laws, since we are saying it is okay for someone to look at another as a sex object if they are homosexual.
As to the negative impact on supervision, not in relation to homsexuals, I have seen the excuse of racism used to avoid punishment over relationships that affect good order and discipline and a tendancy to avoid action out of fear. The homosexual issue is even more loaded. I believe that it has the potential to undermine trust, discipline and morale. This is from someone who used to be a unit commander.
Art
From http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stimulus/2010/dec/7/gays-military-dont-ask-dont-tell-lie/
Gays in the military: Don’t ask, don’t tell, lie
Tuesday, December 7, 2010 – Stimulus That! by Jim Picht
NATCHITOCHES, La., December 7, 2010 – The honor code at the U.S. military academies states proudly that cadets “won’t lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” Their commanders and political leaders must be exempt, because official U.S. policy is to tolerate a lie.
”Don’t ask, don’t tell” has been incorrectly characterized as a speech issue: It’s okay for gays to serve in the military, just not to do so openly. That’s not true. DADT is a kluge concocted in the Clinton White House as a way to ignore the law. It’s illegal for gays and lesbians to serve in the military, just as it was before DADT. All that DADT did was to make it policy not to ask servicemen and women about their sexual orientation and to let them know that, so long as they didn’t make their same-sex orientation known, they wouldn’t be discharged from military service as the law requires.
If a serviceman’s superiors discover that he’s gay, they still have an obligation to initiate discharge proceedings. The major difference between DADT and the status quo ante is that they can’t seek out that information; it has to come to them. It’s the serviceman’s problem to see that it does not.
The real issue facing Congress is whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve legally in the U.S. military. If they can serve legally, there’s no need for DADT. It doesn’t matter whether anyone knows their sexual orientation because it isn’t a cause for discharge. If they can’t serve legally, then DADT is an officially sanctioned dereliction of duty. It says in effect, “it’s okay to ignore the law as long as no one tells you it’s been broken. If you believe but do not know that someone on active duty is concealing his sexual orientation, you will tolerate the lie. If his comrades know about and tolerate the deception, you will tolerate it as well.”
DADT rips the honor code to shreds.
DADT must be abolished. Either gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve legally in the U.S. armed forces, or they should be prohibited from service and military commanders should actively enforce the law. DADT itself is a travesty that has no place in an organization that puts a premium on honor.
Either it is okay for gays and lesbians to serve in the military or it is not, but it can’t possibly be okay for them to serve only as long as they lie about it. DADT is official permission for them to lie. They know the law, they know they’re in violation of it, and so they know that their continued presence in the military constitutes a lie. Everyone knows that this lie is tolerated.
DADT is an affront to everyone who cares about military service, gay and straight.
If gays and lesbians should be banned from the military, there should be a compelling reason to do it. If it can be shown that the presence of gays and lesbians in uniform will degrade American military power, then they should be banned. If it can’t, then they should not. But let’s understand, the real argument is about whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to wear a U.S. military uniform, not about whether they should have to conceal their sexuality in order to do so. That argument boils down to whether military policy should be to lie, cheat, and tolerate those who do.
Kevin,
You are back to the UCMJ, for homosexuals to serve in the military, the UCMJ must be changed. Sodomy is a criminal offense there. If sodomy is made legal, than the portion dealing with sexual relations between a man and a woman other than his wife must be changed or you create a problem, as I said earlier without the change, you actually give the homosexual rights that the heterosexual personnel don’t have. Bad for discipine and morale.
Again you ignore the potential issues with morale and discipline relating to relationships (forced or not) between supervisors and subordinates and the difficulty there when acting on heterosexual misconduct will be more acceptable than acting on homosexual misconduct since the second will always result in a bias complaint.
Art
I believe I replied to what you said, Art. I believe that the same rules regarding relationships and fratenization should apply to heterosexuals and homosexuals. I don’t see how that would cause bias if it’s handled the same in both instances.
The same argument could have been made about Black soldiers and bias when they were disciplined, but we haven’t seen that, have we?
First of all, I have to comment on Kevin’s post about the easily rectified situation of hetero/homosexuals sharing bathrooms and showers. So what you are saying is that the military should make a hetero AND homosexual male and female showers and bathroom. That doesn’t seem easily rectified to me considering the additional costs to change and ad to all barracks and bases around the world. My issue is not that i have to SERVE with a gay, my issue is this: for over 175 years, the U.S. Military has done just fine without openly gays in the military. NOW, all of a sudden, they feel the need to tell everyone they work with “HEY LOOK AT ME, I’M GAY” so what! I don’t run around town announcing to everyone that i’m straight, why should they have to let everyone know they’re gay. It’s not like they are receiving the same benefits as a hetero married couple. The only thing they are doing is putting themselves at risk for being outcast by their peers, getting made fun of and even physically harmed. Because lets face, although 90% of the military can care less about your sexual orientation, you still have that percentage that is bias just the same as you have racists. and the 75% approval rating of military personnel is complete Horse S*** because i am a U.S. Marine and I do not know a single Marine that has been asked or polled. So where did they come up with this number. I don’t know a single Marine that is COMFORTABLE with gays open in the military. It is only natural that you must question their abilities to fight alongside you and even if that is not a concern, now you have to trust someone that you thought you knew, that has seen you naked and now find out the whole time, he was hiding behind a lie. Yeah yeah, I get it, he lied because he had to right. The point is, over 175 years have past without problems and now, with the economy the way it is, with wars going on around the world THIS is what is more important. This is nothing more then a worthless President trying to win the gay vote before election time. He should be more concerned with jobs and national security if you ask me. So to all you homosexuals in the military that have cried out “WE’RE GAY, GET OVER IT” You are the ones that need to get over it. Nobody CARES and nobody needs to KNOW!
Aaron,
Thanks for your opinion. Let me clarify my statement about applying existing fratenization rules. Current military rules allow sex and relationships as long as they don’t interfere with performance, and disallow it between superiors and the people they command.
I do agree with you, Aaron, that it’s no one’s business what their sexual orientation is, and I certainly don’t care either. But the military policy up to present would allow gay military personnel to be discharged if they were found to be gay.
I don’t think any gay serviceman/woman would really be prancing down the street crying out “Hey I’m gay!” I think all they want is to be accepted, just like black soldiers once wanted to be accepted as part of their units, and not segregated or unable to serve (prior to the Civil War).
At the end of the day, they only want the same thing we all want, which is to be treated with respect, and allowed to perform their duties in service to their country.
Personally, I have respect for anyone, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, if they are willing to put their lives at risk to defend our country and the liberties this country is supposed to represent.
Thanks for voicing your thoughts, Aaron, and the fact that it’s still a hot topic is a testament that NOT everyone is open to the idea of serving with gays.
You don’t want them to announce they’re gay? Then the military can’t ostracize or discharge them when it inadvertantly becomes known that they are gay. That’s all they’re asking for.