Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[karaka]

I have yet to see a really decent analysis of what the problems would be if there were no barrier to open gays in the military

Did you read the Prakash essay in Joint Force Quarterly that came out earlier this month?

Crux of the issue - what do we gain and / or what do we lose concerning this issue? Is it really a generational issue or are the naysayers being forcefully cut out of the debate?

Seems like 13000 troops is a pretty big loss, and millions of dollars is nothing to sneeze at either. Quoted from the Prakash essay:

In a report released in February 2005,
the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) estimated the financial impact to be
at least $190.5 million for the previous 10
years of DADT policy. However, a University
of California Blue Ribbon Commission that
included former Secretary of Defense William
Perry questioned the report’s methodology.
The commission faulted the GAO for not
including recruiting and separation costs that
brought the 10-year estimate to $363 million.15
Also worth noting is that these figures do
not account for the additional opportunity
costs of high-profile, prized specialties such as
Arabic speakers.

You can find the Fall JFQ here.

[Schmedlap]

It also gives the boot to people who want to serve, and both points suggest that it is a bad policy overall; thus why retain it? As tequila suggests, it plays both sides of inequality and doesn't serve what seems to be the need of retaining personnel who are valuable assets and holding personnel responsible to the commitment they've made to serve.

It gives the boot to people who want to serve on their own terms. Until DADT changes, you are permitted to serve in the military, even if you are a homosexual, so long as you do not "come out of the closet."

As for holding personnel responsible to the commitment they've made - I think one of their commitments is "don't tell."

Same could be said about the integration of the armed forces in the 1950s.

Is that really analogous? We had Buffalo Soldiers and similar units. I'm not aware of a Brokeback Soldiers regiment. This is an individual issue, not a class or ethnic one dealing with desegregation. Homosexuals can already serve in any MOS with all of the opportunities as heterosexuals. That was not the case with American Soldiers who were black prior to integration. DADT is based upon behavior (disclosing one's sexual preference), not characteristics bestowed at birth (skin color, gender).

Either way, I don't see how we can reasonably view this outside of the larger context that the debate is occurring in. This is part of a larger cultural and political fight. The military is being sucked into it. DADT is a battleground in someone else's war. Rather than getting involved in the debate, I think the military should be telling groups on both sides of it, "go find someplace else to fight. We're a little busy."

On a more serious note, this is one particular area where we (Canada) tend to watch the games going on down south with a jaundiced view. Socially, we have moved to pretty much full recognition of a lot of Gay Rights areas - gay marriage being the most obvious (with all of the legal and tax implications).

I suspect the difference is half due to different views of the military and half due to different views of homosexuality.

I have discussions about this stuff with a lot of people who are involved in LBGT legal issues. What I keep telling them is that they're trying push the law forward and drag the people with them. It is much easier to lead the people forward and let the law conform. Forcing social change through legal maneuvers generally doesn't work without some significant fighting to come to a consensus before hand. The Civil War amendments followed a civil war. Full recognition of minority voting rights followed significant social upheaval. The example that I keep pointing them to for a non-violent alternative is the environmental movement. It's been going on for 40 years. Now people embrace it without any coercion or incentive. There is something to be said for patience. But I guess when the law is your only tool, then everything looks like a legal issue.

It may be a generational thing as Marc points out. I don't think the torch has been passed to a generation that is ready for this.

[Rex Brynen]

It may be a generational thing as Marc points out. I don't think the torch has been passed to a generation that is ready for this.

It certainly has been passed at a national level--polls show around three quarters of all Americans believe that homosexuals should be able to serve in the military even if they openly disclose their sexual orientation (for example, Washington Post/ABC poll, Jull 2008, Q34).

IMHO, it's a human rights issue. "Ready" doesn't enter into it.

[Schmedlap]

It certainly has been passed at a national level--polls show around three quarters of all Americans believe that homosexuals should be able to serve in the military even if they openly disclose their sexual orientation (for example, Washington Post/ABC poll, Jull 2008, Q34).

I think that's a bit of a non sequitur. I don't think we're ready for world peace, but if I were asked, "do you think there should be world peace?" I'd say yes.

A poll opinion is a snapshot in time of what we think a population thinks about an issue. Let it go open to debate and we'll see how ready people are. There were polls in early 2008 showing that people were ready for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Same-sex marriage was shot down in California by public referendum after that WashPo poll that you linked was taken - are the two issues that different? Ideals tend to come across nicely in polls. Once they start considering implementation, people start to get trigger shy.

IMHO, it's a human rights issue. "Ready" doesn't enter into it.

I think you've just illustrated my earlier point about how it is viewed differently in Canada...

I suspect the difference is half due to different views of the military and half due to different views of homosexuality.

I don't think it is widely viewed as a human rights issue in the US. I think many in the US, if not most, would view the Canadian concept of human rights as a bit odd. Americans tend to view them more narrowly - life, freedom, food, shelter, et cetera. Entitlement to a specific line of work with the government? Not so much.

[Rex Brynen]

Entitlement to a specific line of work with the government? Not so much.

I'm not aware that anyone is argued that homosexuals ought to be entitled to military employment--only that they ought not to be barred from performing it on the grounds of open sexual orientation (any more than they ought to be excluded on the basis of race).

[karaka]

I don't think it is widely viewed as a human rights issue in the US.

At least 750,000 people disagree with you on that. And what is freedom if not having the right to partner with the person you love rather than hiding it for fear of losing your job? If freedom is a human right, and heterosexuals are free to marry/engage with their consensual partner of choice (and not get fired for it), then the parallel train of logic stands for homosexuals as well.

Upthread, Xenophon argued against the concept of readiness eloquently, so I defer to that post:

That being said, "readiness" is a non-issue. The military wasn't ready for integration of females nor was it ready for racial desegregation. The pressure to change needs to come from outside events/politicians. The President that decides he wants to take the burden of making that change should take a stand and do so, despite the military's protestations.

And SWJED asked,

Is it really a generational issue or are the naysayers being forcefully cut out of the debate?

This data suggests it trends very much towards being generational.

[Schmedlap]

It seems like you're starting from the position that the policy should be changed and grasping to defend it, rather than starting from the position of asking, "should it?" and "why?"

At least 750,000 people disagree with you on that.

Wow. 750,000 / 300,000,000 = 0.25% of America

If freedom is a human right, and heterosexuals are free to marry/engage with their consensual partner of choice (and not get fired for it), then the parallel train of logic stands for homosexuals as well.

You're treating "freedom" and "legal protection" as synonyms. Freedom is a lack of constraints, but the actions chosen have consequences. Legal protection affords immunity to certain consequences that policy makers view as beneficial or otherwise worthy of protection. Not being fired from a job is not a freedom. In some instances, there are legal protections. Being fired for disclosing one's homosexuality while serving in the military - that's not one of those instances.

Upthread, Xenophon argued against the concept of readiness eloquently, so I defer to that post:

We're not ready for women in the infantry, either. Does it follow that we should integrate them?

This data suggests it trends very much towards being generational.

I suspect it's both. Graphs at that link, I suspect, jibe with most people's impressions/experience, so it probably is partly generational. But I also don't see how anyone can deny the political correctness and other social stigma that each side uses to try to silence the other. That, in my opinion, is one reason that the military should resist the changes that either side proposes (go back to pre-DADT or take it to the next step). This is a political/cultural battle that people are trying to fight on the DoD's turf.

[yamiyugikun]

Hi everyone,

I know there is a similiar thread in this section, but reading this on yahoo news, I found it interesting. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_gays

A study reported on in the L.A. by a UC Santa Barbara think tank said that women are dismissed more from the military than men for being openly gay.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6656168.story

In academia, at least my experience with University of California, gay and lesbian issues aren't just accepted, they are embraced as part of "diversity" just like women's studies, ethnic studies, etc. There are not just gay and lesbian student groups for sexual orientation in general, but LGBT groups (Lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual) student that combine both orientation and ethnic groups (Latino, Asian, Jewish, Caucasian, African American)."

Academia tries hard to be politically correct, or is genuinely progressive, I don't know. I find this issue fascinating in the military because again, its culture is so different from academia. Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?

Naomi

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

I do not know which UC campus your experience is with but IMHO if American academia was truly interested in embracing “diversity” there would be ROTC on virtually every campus as well as full administration support for “republican” or “conservative” groups. In my experience the liberalism and diversity of many in academia (as with many liberals) is only liberal and diverse if your world view conforms exactly to theirs.

Why is it on some campuses conservative speakers are not invited to speak, or if they do appear some are barely allowed to speak by those who oddly claim to believe in diversity? Somehow I find preventing an individual from freely voicing an opinion in a classroom or on a campus to be neither a “liberal” attitude nor the promotion of “diversity.”

As to DADT, I personally feel it is a ridiculous policy that actually may be counter productive. Simply allow men and women to serve, the UCMJ has enough archaic clauses governing personal behavior to keep them in line. I am not sure that, even absent DADT, gays would be too “open” about their orientation since, as others can point out, the military tends to lean more towards conservatism.

[yamiyugikun]

My campus is UCLA. The Bruin Republicans and conservative groups on my campus are small, if non-existant and they keep a low profile if they do exist. I've had a similiar experience in academia with "liberalism" and "diversity" as well. Some liberal professors seem to want their students to conform to them in attitude and agree with them. As an undgrad, I accepted it cause I didn't know any better and thought professors were the smartest people I knew, simply cause they had Ph.ds.

Grad school is better cause you are encouraged to think on your own, develop your own ideas, but still there's that underlying current of "liberalism." I used to like the "diversity" idea but eventually all it comes down to is identity politics, one group focusing on themselves exclusively on victim mentality and hating outsiders, creating further separation. Granted, history is not perfect, society will never be, but hating others for what was done to your group creates more biogtry and hate.

One of the issues I was interested in as an undergrad was feminism. But the feminist campus magazine I read was so hateful instead of empowering women to work together with men, it came off to me as hate.

I agree with you, Moktar, it is hypocritical for a campus to claim they are diverse and not allow conservative speakers to speak. Even though the military leans towards conservatism, there's something about its values and traditions that draws me. I'm coming from an outsiders point of view, but the military seems to have something that was lost from American culture after the civil rights movement.

[Schmedlap]

In regard to the lesbian issue, here is what I saw in the military. Keep in mind that I was an Infantry Officer, so I never had any women subordinates or in my chain of command.

The female barracks on post was guarded by some women like a jealous, insecure man would guard his hot wife. Some of my Soldiers griped about "not being able to get past the lesbian gatekeepers" when they tried to venture over to the female barracks. They described stereotypical "butch" females as intercepting and confronting them and denying them entry to the female barracks. My reaction was always to ask, "you've got a large city 30 minutes from here - is it too much to drive off post to meet women?" I remember one day, after my Soldiers explained this phenomenon to me, I was on BDE staff duty and saw three of them walking in the direction of the female barracks. "Going to try your luck again?" I asked. "Watch, sir - I guarantee the lesbian gatekeepers cut us off." I watched from afar, and sure enough, out they came. Apparently they would threaten to call the MPs and make accusations that make the endeavor more trouble than it was worth. Anyway...

My CSS Soldiers (NBC, Commo, Supply, and other non-infantry) elaborated on these stories, explaining how things work in the MSB and FSB units. They told tales of certain women being off-limits because it was more trouble than it was worth to contend with their lesbian "handlers." Apparently some of these women were bi-sexual, but were jealousy guarded by the women who were lesbian only. I witnessed this in action one day when my NBC NCO saw an old acquaintance whom he served with in an MSB. He walked over to quickly say hi (innocently) to her and was immediately surrounded by three other women. I didn't realize exactly what was happening, but he looked kind of nervous and then quickly excused himself. After he rejoined me, he said, "did you see those three [lesbians] roll up on me?" and he then explained that they were the girl's "handlers." He explained that these dynamics created a lot of tension in the units and in some cases cliques formed along lines of sexual preference more so than ethnicity or age - so I guess it's good for diversity? It didn't sound like a healthy organization.

Tales like these were common (and many were far more bizarre and too crazy to share in a public forum, imo). I was always surprised at how common lesbians were in the military, in comparison to their numbers outside of the military, so it does not surprise me at all that most of the DADT dischargees were lesbians. My lack of surprise is due to their numbers and for the propensity that I observed for women to avoid deployments for various women's issues (for example, pregnancies spiked when units came down on orders to deploy to combat and even to training centers). Claiming to be a lesbian seems less of a hassle than getting pregnant.

I would add that for every story of Soldiers complaining about lesbians "cockblocking" them, there were 5 or 10 other instances of sordid, inappropriate heterosexual affairs between superiors and subordinates, between married and unmarried (or married and married), and with other people's girlfriends/boyfriends. I cannot imagine how commonplace such affairs would be if we had mixed-gender barracks accommodations. I think the Army has a lot discipline problems that it needs to address before we expand the role of women in our military and before we open up our force to a segment of the population that identifies itself, in large part, by its sexual preferences. Inappropriate sexual relationships are already too common and impact morale of units. At least DADT gives the chain of command something to work with. Remove that, and you'll have Soldiers who serve openly, inevitably encountering problems from their peers, and then running to the JAG demanding EO-type action - another headache for the chain of command. I also suspect you'll have more women getting pregnant to avoid deployments, rather than just claiming/admitting to being a lesbian.

I guess it's not politically correct, but that is the sanitized version of what I observed.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Naomi, I think “identity politics” is pretty spot on and some people certainly take it way too far and it becomes 'it is all about me and my issues and screw everyone else not like me.'

The military culture may appeal to you because, besides its conservative aspects, it is very structured (but not necessarily Draconian) and there is also a strong sense of service inculcated in most service members and often their families. Despite the general “conservatism” there also seems to me to be a more open-mindedness about things in general, one could say an inquisitiveness, that is not always present in the civilian. Perhaps that is due to the diversity of the military with people coming from a wide range of backgrounds, but there is also the aspect of adaptation in the face of adversity that causes many in the military to consider things from several perspectives.

Not that there are not bigots, racists, and narrow minded people in the ranks, but I think they are often marginalized since their attitude is counter-productive to mission accomplishment.

Schmed, wow that's some very odd stuff and since you gave the PG version I can only imagine. But that's were leadership needs to step in and have a talk with the ladies.

For example, when the three soldiers were confronted you could have wandered over and asked what the problem seemed to be (a legit question since you were the staff duty). If male soldiers are allowed to enter the female barracks then those women had no real right to block that entrance (the Marines had very few women when I was AD and the barracks were strictly off limits to members of the opposite sex. That was changing in my final years as there were male and female “wings” and the restriction thus passed on to the individual rooms themselves).

The NBC NCO should have told the three female soldiers to piss off (assuming they were of junior rank) as he was having a private conversation with a soldier.

Like Naomi mentioned it sounds like a lot of “identity politics” was occurring and it takes action by the leadership to get everyone identifying as soldiers first and foremost. The Marines do a fairly good job at that although I imagine there are similar issues in some units, we are, after all, not quite perfect.

Your take on the higher levels of female discharges due to being lesbians sounds accurate, plus if they really are gay I don't think the biological mechanics of getting pregnant would be an option for them.

As for the wide range of “inappropriate sexual relationships” that is one of the by-products occurring when one places males and females together in any situation. Part of the issue is the permissiveness of the society from which we come (not that that's a bad thing) and the solution may lie with the NCO corps. They need to impress on their soldiers why certain behaviors are detrimental to the unit and keep hammering that message home. Having annual or semi-annual EO/Sexual harassment training isn't enough. When the troops bitch and complain about the emphasis (and they will) the NCOs can point out if the #### wouldn't happen we wouldn't need to talk about it so much.

Perhaps in eliminating DADT there could be certain changes in the UCMJ to address certain behaviors, i.e. prohibiting sexual activity of any kind in quarters. Perhaps also a loosening of some of the PC attitudes.

It's a tough issue, but then again that's why you get paid the big bucks.

[Cavguy]

As long as you do your job and aren't creating an indiscipline problem or sexually harassing anyone, I really don't care what you do.

That's my take. I had (suspected) gay soldiers in my company, and most of the unit knew about it. We didn't care because each of them was a solid pro and never gave anyone reason to care.

There is a big generational shift on this as well, younger soldiers are almost completely accepting, given they grew up in an "open" culture regarding homosexuality. Opposition to allowing gays to openly serve seems to increase in lockstep with age.

I was an XO of a mixed male/female AVN BDE HHC, and I had far, far more problems with heterosexuals in those few months than gay incidents in 12 years.

[Cavguy]

From an email I wrote awhile back:

I have a sense opposition tends to skew by age here. I find far more opposition in the pre-1990s commissioning/entry year groups than those that entered in the army in the 90s and later. Part of this may be because the 90s was the first time where most of us knew "open" homosexuals in schools, workplaces, and colleges. I didn't start at this position. I actually wrote a high-school oped in 1992 arguing against homosexuals being admitted to the military. Becoming friends in college with several open homosexuals changed my opinion. Combat service changed it more. That in and of itself accounts for my change of attitude.

We have existing regulations to handle sexual harassment and sexual assault, regardless of gender. Those would not change.

As a ground combat arms officer, that most soldiers I led in combat just don't give a damn what your sexuality is, only whether you can do your job. The current junior soldier and NCO grew up in a society where the view about homosexuals is considerably different than what was common before. The strongly wager the millenials would be accepting if not supportive of the change. I've never met anyone who joined the army for the reason of being free of homosexuals. I categorically disagree that admitting homosexuality would somehow make the combat arms effiminate. That trades in old stereotypes those of us who have friends that happen to be homosexuals know to be untrue. (Disclosure: my best friend from college "came out" a few years ago, didn't change a thing about how we interact)

People may joke and go on about it, but when rubber meets the road people care about what kind of soldier you are. You can see evidence of this in the number of media reports about semi-open serving homosexuals with the consent of their chain of command. Why lose a good troop? And if I have gay partners in housing w/benefits - so what? Can anyone show me in a statistical/factual way this would be prejudicial to good order and discipline?

[Schmedlap]

For example, when the three soldiers were confronted you could have wandered over and asked what the problem seemed to be (a legit question since you were the staff duty). If male soldiers are allowed to enter the female barracks then those women had no real right to block that entrance...

True, though I think we both know that would have been a temporary, one-time fix. The problem was not relegated to the barracks - it was pervasive throughout the chain of command and the barracks was a symptom. Plus, if I'm trying to unscrew the logistical abortion that I am handed as an XO, while attempting to prep the unit for an upcoming deployment, then I've got bigger fish to fry than whether my Soldiers can go partake of the on-post meat market. There are other considerations, too, for example the FSB had an extremely high rate of STDs. I was actually reassured to see my Soldiers get turned away from that horror show.

The NBC NCO should have told the three female soldiers to piss off (assuming they were of junior rank) as he was having a private conversation with a soldier.

Agree. Not sure what their rank was. I was just providing an example of the what appeared to be commonplace behavior.

Leaders certainly do need to fix these things. My point was that they should be fixed before we undertake further social experiments. Is adjusting DADT really important, given that we've got two wars going on? As noted on the other thread, this is a political and cultural battle being fought on the military's turf. We already risk being sucked too far into politics in light of the recent squabbling over the assessment in Afghanistan and apparent disagreements between McChyrstal and Biden. We don't need this.

Perhaps in eliminating DADT there could be certain changes in the UCMJ to address certain behaviors, i.e. prohibiting sexual activity of any kind in quarters.

That sounds like a pretty mixed signal to me. On the one hand, we will allow individuals to serve even after disclosing that they are homosexuals - so you can be gay and live in the barracks with other gay men. On the other hand, we will prohibit certain sexual activity, but Soldiers will have no reasonable expectation of those prohibitions being enforced because the existing prohibitions are violated as thoughtlessly and as often as people violate speed limits. In other words - keep doing what you're doing and do these other things, too. I say fix the discipline problems first and then explore policy changes. Or adjust policy to help fix the discipline problems. But don't ignore the discipline problems and then complicate the situation further. I think making new policies that nobody expects to be enforced and making the environment more permissive is equivalent to ignoring the problem and creating conditions that make it worse.

[Schmedlap]

As long as you do your job and aren't creating an indiscipline problem or sexually harassing anyone, I really don't care what you do.
...
I had far, far more problems with heterosexuals in those few months than gay incidents in 12 years.

Agree

[Entropy]

My thoughts on this topic pretty much mirror Cavguy's.

Anecdotally, I've seen/known of twice the number of lesbians in the service than gay men. Of the two incidents I know of where people were busted (caught in the act, so to speak), both were Lesbians. One was particularly bad in that an E-3 was caught with the ships' supply officer, an O-4, in the officer's stateroom, on deployment.

[Ken White]

I was an XO of a mixed male/female AVN BDE HHC, and I had far, far more problems with heterosexuals in those few months than gay incidents in 12 years.

it really is true the best place to hide things from an Aviator is under the soap?

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

A one time fix perhaps, but if done often enough the message might sink in. The key of course is how often will be enough and it adds more time to an already full day.

Agree the Army (and other services) are not always great places to practice social engineering particularly when engaged in war on two fronts. Yet as Cavguy said much of the resistance to gays serving seems to be generational. I still feel that not many would be “open” about their orientation, without DADT they just wouldn't have to deal with hiding it off duty.

The problems in the higher chain of command need to be fixed in the same way, it's just a different dynamic for officers as not as many live in barracks.

My point on the UCMJ is that it would first need a bit of a revamp (like eliminating the article prohibiting sodomy, which covers all other sexual acts outside of standard male/female intercourse, which is way outdated) so that it prohibits not the type of sexual activity but the time and place where it is prejudicial to good order and discipline. I'm no Puritan, and have nothing against men having sex with men, but if they are doing it my barracks area, work area, or military vehicles, then I do because it impacts others who shouldn't have to be exposed to anyone's proclivities. Goes the same for male/female and female/female as well as a host of other activities (e.g. proselytizing). There is a time and place for all activities and sometimes people just need to keep their libidos in check until they can find that time and place. I know that can be hard on occasion but so be it.

I would like to see DADT eventually go away since I have friends and relatives who are gay and do serve and they have expressed some angst about having to live a lie and watch their back when they are off base. The adage when I was on AD was that you spend 90% of your time dealing with the f*d-up 10%.

The big difference is you have to currently deal with all those various permutations of raging hormones whereas I can now sit back, out of the fray, and take pot shots.

[yamiyugikun]

Very interesting about attitudes towards sexual orientation varying along age and generation. What happens in the barracks with sexual activity sounds very similiar to college dorms. There was a rule passed recently at the University of Bostom that roommates can't have their boyfriend/girlfriend spend the night in the room with the roommate present. Of course it also ruled out sleeping together in the same bed with clothes on and not doing anything. Its common to have stories where one roommate falls asleep, the other brings in his/her guy/girlfriend and they get it on and wake the roommate who was asleep up. Happened in my undergrad when my roommate thought I was asleep, it was bad manners! Plain and simple. So I learned to tell roommates that if they ever want the room during some alone time with the boy/girlfriend, I will stay out and respectfully give privacy.

Schemlep, are men allowed to visit women's barracks just to drop by and say hi casually? In the scenerio you described, it didn't sound like the guys were causing "harm." The article in the LA times about lesbians getting discharged made it sound like men were sexually harrassing iwomen who refused their advances, then the harrasing men got angry saying the women were lesbians so they got discharged for DADT. That article put all the blame on the guys.

I had no idea how aggressive and territorial the lesbian "gatekeepers" were in blocking the guys. I'm also surprised by the high number of lesbians in the military too. I remember watching Gen. Pace's testimony about how important morality was to him, about officer's not sleeping with other officer's wives. Makes sense after learning what you shared about the 5-10 incidents of other sexual activity going on between heterosexuals married/non married.

How would the army fix its disipline problems? As an outsider most of the problems I hear about in the military has to do with wounded warriors, tramatic brain injury and POST on military personnel and families, at least that is what the DoD media shares.

Most lesbians/gay students I've encountered in academia seem the opposite of the type described guarding the barracks. They are like any other student group, but tend to be "politically" progressive by liberal academia's definition. Maybe the military setting just brings out that aggressive side

Naomi