LTG Bostick on homosexuals in service

[JMA]

I don't need to comment on how Lt. Gen. Bostick is handling this matter.

There is a parallel here with females in the military.

The article The Case Against Gays in the Military states as follows:

... This they do by means of an ethos that stresses discipline, morale, good order and unit cohesion. Anything that threatens the nonsexual bonding that lies at the heart of unit cohesion adversely affects morale, disciple and good order, generating friction and undermining this ethos.

I suggest that there are two distinct and separate issues to be addressed here. One, relates to consensual relationships with any restrictions (say between which ranks), and two, relates to the categories of sexual harassment, unwanted sexual contact and sexual assault.

There are already codes of conduct covering the area of consensual relationships (in most armies I presume). Those one assumes would merely be extended to cover all such relationships. This would (I assume) be as manageable as it was/is with heterosexual relationships.

The second category I would suggest is of real concern.

The BBC article US military sex attack reports up (now 18 months old) contains the following:

Of the 6.8% of women and 1.8% of men who indicated they had experienced unwanted sexual contact, the majority - 79% of women and 78% of men - chose not to report it.

There is of course a double edged sword here, one side is the potential continued victimisation of gays while the other relates to the potential for increases in sexual assault incidence levels to that suffered by women in the military and possibly beyond.

How the military will deal with this already has legal precedence through the sexual assault cases relating to serving females. (Can't start to make new rules to cover only gays now can you)

Now sit back and wait for the report of the first gay version of Tailhook '91.