Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[Entropy]

A new study from the Palm Center (PDF File). Here are the key findings:

Finding one: The law locks the military’s position into stasis and does not accord any trust to the Pentagon to adapt
policy to changing circumstances
Finding two: Existing military laws and regulations provide commanders with sufficient means to discipline
inappropriate conduct
Finding three: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has forced some commanders to choose between breaking the law and undermining
the cohesion of their units
Finding four: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has prevented some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members from obtaining
psychological and medical care as well as religious counseling
Finding five: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has caused the military to lose some talented service members
Finding six: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has compelled some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members to lie about their
identity
Finding seven: Many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are serving openly
Finding eight:“Don’t ask, don’t tell” has made it harder for some gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to perform their
duties
Finding nine: Military attitudes towards gays and lesbians are changing
Finding ten: Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to
morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion

[William F. Owen]

I completely understand prejudice to Gays in the military, but only if you want to admit that being ignorant and bigoted is OK, and why would anyone want to serve with men who think harming or discriminating against others based on sex, race or even religion is OK?

If an armed force, as macho, over-bearing, traditional, family orientated and even religious as the Israeli Defence Force can encompass the idea of being gay, then sure as hell, the US Armed Forces should do so.

I went to the Gay pride beach party in Tel-Aviv. Wonderful! Anywhere you can watch cute chicks kissing, while your wife enjoys a penis shaped iced lolly, and you get yell abuse at the small number of religious, or right wing zealots and bigots who exercise their right to mostly peaceful protest, gets my vote!

I will admit to declining the penis shaped ice lolly though!

[Entropy]

I will admit to declining the penis shaped ice lolly though!

Aww! When in Rome....

Seriously, though, I pretty much agree with what you said. Gays in the military don't bother me one whit and so I my personal opinion is that it's time for DADT to go.

I have to say, though, the ignorance of many civilians who are against and actively work against DADT is astonishing. It's incorrectly labeled a "policy" by these groups and in the general media which suggests the military can easily change it. Many times I've pointed out that the military has no choice in the matter because it is a federal law - not policy - and instead of blaming the military they should perhaps point the blame elsewhere. Keeping ROTC off campus and protesting at recruiting stations is not going to get the military to drop DADT - only Congress can do that.

[marct]

From CBC.ca

Soldiers march in Toronto Gay Pride parade
Set up booth in gay village for recruitment drive
Last Updated: Sunday, June 29, 2008 | 2:07 PM ET

....

"The message to the public is that the Canadian Forces is an employer of choice. We have employment opportunities that people can pursue, regardless of gender identity, sexual orientation," he told CBC News.

More...

See also

Military joins Pride parade

Toronto.com
Jun 29, 2008 06:53 PM
Emma Reilly
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Hundreds of revellers danced, shimmied, and strutted their way through downtown Toronto Sunday in the Gay Pride parade – and for the first time, members of the Canadian Armed Forces were among them.

"It's a huge thing for me personally," said Warrant Officer John McDougall, a parade participant who has been an openly gay member of the military for 13 years. "To be able to be in public and be recognized not just for being a soldier, but for being a soldier who happens to be gay is amazing."

More...

[Stan]

Do tell, it works on paper back on Capital Hill, but seriously, not doing much far from the flag poles where most of us work.

Crankin' out regs in an election year rarely translates into automatic (full) acceptance in the ranks.

"He's gay, Stan, and it's legal... live with it" (yeah, right).

It's going to take more than reams of paper from some snappy congressman's aid and it's gonna take tons more time.

Glad I'm retired

Nice jpeg, Marc !

[Schmedlap]

I don't think that the issue has anything to do with whether allowing homosexuals to openly serve will impact morale, cohesion, discipline, et cetera. This is a 100% political issue from both sides.

One side wants to eliminate DADT simply because it will be seen as progress in the equal rights / equal privileges / whatever you want to call it movement. The other side wants to keep DADT in place - or go back to pre-DADT - because this would be seen as defending a healthy cultural norm or as a political victory for their side. It strains my credulity to think that those on the former side really care about military discipline or that those on the latter side really care about whether some guy in a four-man stack is aroused.

This is just a convenient battlefield in a much larger political and cultural battle between people who don't see the military as anything other than a block to check on their list of political goals. A discussion of the merits of DADT, in the context of whether we maintain it, seems like a moot argument.

[selil]

Regardless of the enlightened fantasy of the American public towards racial, gender, sexual orientation freedom the reality is a puritanical repression based on zealotry. No where will that zealotry be so pronounced as the military, the one place where people can be forced to comply to edicts of social manipulation, regardless of the fantasy or antiquated reasons behind it. The false dichotomy of puritanism versus hedonism that the argument implies rejects the spectrum of humanity and beliefs that make us as a society resilient. In capitulation to repression and adoption of ideas and restrictions based on flawed social concepts the military is weakened through self deception and baseless repression.

The Eisenhower doctrine of enforced idealism to a formalized Christian nation layered upon the reality of secular rules and laws has had consequences far beyond "One nation under God". Constraints and dictates empowered to respond to a communist expansion have resulted in a variety of unintended pseudo-religious repressive tendencies. There is nothing more basic as a freedom, other than, the ability to choose who you are intimate with. The restrictions and restraints imposed by the military for various reasons are based on a self perpetuating straw-man that impose draconian response to a pedantic threat. A threat supposedly to good order, good discipline, and morale based wholly on an egregious pseudo-religious moral rectitude.

In essence there is a basic freedom and level of maturity in regards to that freedom. The question posed is shall it be permissible for any entity to deny a familial relationship of a heterosexual nature? Putting some more meat on the question shall it be permissible for any entity to deny a familial relationship of a bi-racial nature? There is an underlying puritan stream of reasoning that says society shall determine who is allowed to consort with whom. A concept I personally reject.

[jkm_101_fso]

A new study from the Palm Center (PDF File). Here are the key findings:

This is a difficult subject and I think if the policy is ever re-looked or eventually overturned, it will come after years of study by DOD.
I generally email my congresswoman (democrat) from time to time and ask her military specific questions. A few months back, I engaged her about "don't ask, don't tell" and her response was along the lines of, "I will take the advice of the leaders of the military on this subject". Not that she speaks for the entire House, but I found her response interesting. The overturning of this policy would take a Presidential decision and an act of congress, I'm assuming. Although I think that our society has evolved to be more "gay friendly" or "tolerant", considerations for gay servicemembers should be recognized and reviewed before the implementation. The military would completely need to revamp the EO, Sexual Harrassment policies, etc. When I'm normally asked by civilians about my opinion on this issue, my response is that "don't ask don't tell" is not a policy to exclude gay servicemembers, but to protect them. The policy, in literal translation, doesn't say gay people can't serve, they just can't tell anyone they are gay. There is a documentary currently running on Showtime about a gay Marine; his story was interesting, to say the least.

[SWJED]

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?

[marct]

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?

That really is the crux.....

I think it is more than a generational issue, although that is part of it. Honestly, it's always been a bit hard for me to reconcile the DADT policy with anything other than an ostrich position; something that never lasts in the long run .

I don't know how you folks (the US I mean) will end up resolving it, and 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. Hmmm, guess I should pull that apart a bit more.... Let's say that i am still waiting to see if the problems that are brought up as coming out of such a policy are a) realistic (i.e. what's the frequency disty of their perception) and b) capable of being overcome by modifications of existing policy.

Why I think that it is important to discuss the issue is that

a) it is one of the few major areas where the military does not match the civilian populace demographically, and
b) it is a political hot potatoe that is a constant "irritant".

That's just my $0.0194

[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.

[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.

[gute]

What to do with DADT. I know what views on this are and I know how people would have responded to lifting DADT in the late 80's - mid 90's Marine Corps, but how about now?

I asked a guy at work who served in the Marine Corps in the last few years how he and the other guys viewed DADT. He said that they believed their was a guy in their weapons company who they all thought was gay - so if he would come out, it would be no big suprise. What about those who will come out that WILL be a suprise - could that not harm morale or it will be so few it will not make a difference?

Also, IMO, lifting DADT will allow those passed over for promotion, etc to use being gay as an excuse, but I guess it would be no different then using race or religion as an excuse.

I say let all service members vote on this. Easy vote. Yes for DADT, No for DADT. What the sevice members decide is the way it will be.

Is DADT all about nothing or should we keep this in place?

All I know is it upsets my universe - kind of like girls playing organized football or wrestling. Some things are just not right. But, I guess if it does not harm me then why should I care - right? I just think this will turn into a cluster.

[tequila]

I say let all service members vote on this. Easy vote. Yes for DADT, No for DADT. What the sevice members decide is the way it will be.

Like it or not, the Constitution says that Congress sets policies for the military, not democratic votes by military members. Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"

[USMC-03]

The problem though is that to this point Congress has made no law changing DADT. This recent termination of DADT is by order of a federal judge who is in effect legislating from the bench. The last time I checked the judicial branch had no power to pass laws or make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. It's really a breach of the separation of powers as set up by the Constitution.

[gute]

Like it or not, the Constitution says that Congress sets policies for the military, not democratic votes by military members. Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"

I know what the Constitution says - I was trying to be practical.