Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[Rank amateur]

I just want to say that I enjoyed the ads in the "single in Baghdad" thread much more than the ads in this one.

[Jedburgh]

I agree with the general consensus that carrying out the recommendations stated in the report would not result in the Army imploding.

I also want to add to Ken's statement that many have served - and are serving - without any issues or problems. In fact, having to say that they "serve without any issues or problems" almost demeans them, because it implies that they are somehow less of a soldier than others and must be considered in that way. They are just soldiers, some serve relatively openly, some don't - and they have the same varied careers in the military as does anyone else who serves in uniform. Some are outstanding soldiers, some as ordinary as anyone else, and others may be Joe-####-the-Ragman - a disciplinary problem for NCOs that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. As others have stated, most of the current generation of young GIs could care less about such things.

In any case, the manner in which the Army executes the law is not just Don't Ask, Don't Tell - it is also Don't Pursue. The intent of the addition was to prevent any harassment for whatever reason - I remember the briefing at the time provided examples such as, the servicemember may subscribe to homosexual publications, be known to frequent off-post homosexual establishments, and even be seen in the company of a member of the same-sex entering motels or other such common locations for discreet encounters - and the command is not to do anything. It was stressed that there were only two methods by which the process could be initiated for a servicemember to be separated for homosexuality - be caught in the physical act with a member of the same sex (implying that it was occurring in the barracks, on other government property, or that an arrest occurred for a public act) or that the servicemember comes forward and puts a request in writing stating that their homosexuality is incompatible with continued military service.

The latter option is not so simple - it also required interviews with the commander (and up the chain a bit) as well as with the unit chaplain/base shrink. So it actually required multiple official verbal statements, in addition to the initial one in writing.

That long ramble leads me to another point - when pushing trainees in my last year in, we were informed that we would no longer separate trainees who failed the fat boy program or multiple APFTs unless there were other disciplinary issues involved. The environment being the way it was, there were a certain few amongst the trainees who were not too happy with having the relatively simple food-for-freedom option removed, let alone the even easier physical slug route. Surprise - the number of self-reported homosexuals nearly tripled in a six month period following the change in policy...

[Fuchs]

This thread made me think about how it's like in the German forces. I simply didn't know. It was never an issue to me.
So I looked it up and it seems as if there's a ZDv (=central manual for all services and branches that tells what and how to do or not) that covers the issue in a chapter. It forbids any discrimination since sometime in 2004.

That's pretty much in line with a civilian law since I think 06 that illegalizes discrimination towards several groups of people in general (including homos).

I didn't spot any homos in service when I was active, but later on I came to a personal guess that 5-10% of males are homo or bi.

Well, as long as the good-looking females aren't homo, up to 49% homo rate would be fine with me. Less competition.


I wonder whether the U.S.Army in Germany is subject to German civilian laws to the extent that their treatment of homos might be illegal here ?

[jmm99]

re: Fuchs

I wonder whether the U.S.Army in Germany is subject to German civilian laws to the extent that their treatment of homos might be illegal here ?

I'd restate the case as follows:

Can a US Army commanding officer, stationed in Germany, be prosecuted in a German court for following the mandates of 10 USC 654 with respect to one of the soldiers under his command - assuming arguendo that the action taken with respect to that soldier would violate the terms of a German statute governing the rights of a protected group ?

In short, can the officer be prosecuted for faithfully following US law, IF German law prohibits that conduct.

---------------------------------
Here is a start on finding the answer.

The text and notes for 10 USC 654 are at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...000-notes.html

----------------------------------
Your Auswärtige Amt:

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo...ungsrecht.html

auf Deutsch:

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo...ungsrecht.html

has this to say in general:

The law governing the presence of forces

The presence of forces from NATO states stationed in Germany on the basis of a special agreement is governed by the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) of 19 June 1951 (Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of their Forces, Federal Law Gazette 1961 II p.1190), and the SOFA Supplementary Agreement of 3 August 1959 (Agreement to Supplement the Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces with respect to Foreign Forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany, Federal Law Gazette 1961 II p.1218). The Supplementary Agreement contains detailed provisions on all questions regarding troops stationed in Germany. Following German unification, it was thoroughly revised by the Agreement of 18 March 1993 (Federal Law Gazette 1994 II p.2594).

The NATO SOFA and SOFA Supplementary Agreement conferred numerous privileges and immunities on the relevant forces. These include, for example, immunity as regards civil, administrative and criminal jurisdiction, and privileges with respect to social insurance, customs and taxation and motor vehicles. In addition, they – especially the SOFA Supplementary Agreement – include provisions on the use of premises and the employment of local German staff by forces stationed in the country.

-----------------------------------
The relevant agreements are these (plus perhaps a few more):

NATO SOFA 1951

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b510619a.htm

FRG Accession 1954

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b541023v.htm

SOFA Supp 1959

[need url for text of agreement]

SOFA Rev. 1993

[need url for text of agreement]

-----------------------------------
The run of the mill SOFA case involves an offense recognized by both jurisdictions. E.g., US v Thomas (murder by airman of girlfriend; primary US jurisdiction to prosecute airman, despite concurrent German jurisdiction):

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opini...rm/96-0160.htm

The Operational Law Handbook, JA 422, 1997 (chap. 3) has a general discussion, but is not directly helpful on this specific topic:

http://www.cdmha.org/toolkit/cdmha-r...oplaw-ja97.pdf

-------------------------------------
Your question is similar to what was attempted in CCR v. Bush, Rumsfeld et al., discussed in the German Law Journal:

6 German Law Journal No. 3 (1 March 2005) - Torture in Abu Ghraib. The Compliant against Donald Rumsfeld under the German Code against Crimes under International Law

http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/...er-Lescano.pdf

Whatever happened to that case ?

[Rex Brynen]

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Views on Gays in the Military Shift in U.S.
July 24, 2008

Abstract: (Angus Reid Global Monitor) - More adults in the United States believe homosexuals who publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military, according to a poll by TNS released by ABC News and the Washington Post. 75 per cent of respondents agree with this rationale, up 29 points since May 1993.

[Jason Pannell]

I agree that it is time for the military as a whole to become tolerant of sexual preference. However, I will say that the growing pains will be tough and obnoxious enough that the media and public will be all over it. There is a key problem with this. Whichever Congress or President decides to take up this problem, will mainly reap all the guilt of the injuries and/or deaths that come from the growing pains. I agree that it 100% political and that is why it will take a bunch of marbles to even bring this up. Once it is brought up, it will be passed because people in politics cannot afford to look like a homophobe regardless of how justified their reasoning might be.
If the military could change the policy it would be best for them. However, seeing as how the change must come from above, it will seem forced upon them. So regardless of how much servicemen might be for or against it, every case of violence or discrimination will hurt the military in the short run.