Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[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.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

...the reality is a puritanical repression based on zealotry...false dichotomy of puritanism versus hedonism... capitulation to repression and adoption of ideas and restrictions based on flawed social concepts...weakened through self deception and baseless repression...pseudo-religious repressive tendencies...egregious pseudo-religious moral rectitude...underlying puritan stream of reasoning that says society shall determine who is allowed to consort with whom...

All that, and I believe sometimes there are those who see the more flamboyant of the GLBT community and shudder to think of them being in the military, not really stopping to think that those are probably not the types who would join.

While selil said it far more eloquently than I ever could I really think it is shame that the gay service members I know, and all others who are serving honorably today, must basically lie about who they are.

[Entropy]

President-elect Obama's press secretary at a news conference today:

Thaddeus: Is the new administration going to get rid of the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy?

Gibbs: Thaddeus, you don’t hear a politician give a one-word answer much, but it’s yes.

Jump ahead to about 4:15 in the video to hear it.

[Xenophon]

I've seen a lot of the, "the military isn't ready for openly gay servicemembers" argument against those opposed to allowing it. And they have a point. Combat arms types of all ranks in the Marine Corps are vehemently against it, and I'm sure the feeling still exists in other parts of the military. When DADT is eventually ended, there will be violence and hazing at first, and probably for a while. That's very sad, but unfortunately true. I have trouble convincing some Marines that the President-elect is not a Muslim. Open-mindedness towards homosexuals is a little far into the future.

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.

[William F. Owen]

Well you shouldn't be surprised,
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/10618.htm

...but I guess most will be.

[Boondoggle]

This thread probably needs to wake up with Secretary Gates looking to make the application of DADT more "humane", the current admin's promise to end it during their first term, and the growing public support to end it.

And this story has the makings of, depending how it plays out, of adding to the discussion.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...&zIndex=125686

[Rex Brynen]

Air Force Academy censors prof for discussing gays in the military
press release, Palm Center, UCSB

SANTA BARBARA, CA, October 8, 2009 - The Palm Center has learned that a Lieutenant Colonel who taught at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, CO, was punished and barred from teaching after she invited three Academy alumni to campus to discuss sexual minorities in the military. The professor, Lt. Col. Edith A. Disler, told Palm Center researchers that the classroom visit was approved by her course director, but Academy officials pulled her from the classroom anyway, launching an investigation that ended in a formal reprimand based on the subject matter discussed.

As the item notes, the Air Force Academy's response was a rather sharp contrast with NDU (and, indirectly, the CJCS), which in the latest issue of Joint Force Quarterly (4th Quarter 2009) has a critical article by Om Prakesh on The Efficacy of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' (featured as winner of the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition).

[Schmedlap]

DADT is a battle ground in a culture/political war. Until condoning homosexuality becomes a societal norm or until it becomes a norm to define it as unacceptable deviancy, DADT should not be changed in favor of either side of the battle - no more restricive, no more lenient. Otherwise, you're just dragging the military into a cultural/political fight.

[karaka]

Women more likely to be expelled under ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

Women are far more likely than men to be kicked out of the military under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy against gays in uniform, according to government figures released Thursday that critics said reflect deep-seated sexism in the armed forces.

Women accounted for 15 percent of all active-duty and reserve members of the military but more than one-third of the 619 people discharged last year because of their sexual orientation.

The disparity was particularly striking in the Air Force, where women represented 20 percent of all personnel but 61 percent of those expelled. That is a significant jump from the previous year and marks the first time women in any branch of the military constituted a majority of those dismissed under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” researchers said.

Delightful.

[Schmedlap]

That reinforces my view that DADT is a good policy. Some can wish for society to embrace homosexuality, but the fact remains that many do not. That includes members of the armed forces. DADT gives homosexuals a way out if they feel uncomfortable in the service. Sure, some might abuse it and just use it as an excuse to not deploy - but that is not my impression of how it usually works. I've seen guys who were "in the closet" deploy and serve admirably. Not all of them wanted to. They could have played the DADT card and didn't. But I think it was reassuring for them that they had the option. I think that many proponents of DADT are doing a disservice to the people whom they purportedly care so much about.

[tequila]

Some can wish for society to embrace homosexuality, but the fact remains that many do not. That includes members of the armed forces.

Same could be said about the integration of the armed forces in the 1950s. I deployed with plenty of Marines from minority backgrounds (and am one myself), and plenty of Marines who actively disliked, if not despised, most minorities. In the infantry units I've been part of, female Marines and servicemembers are almost universally despised.

Also I wonder how many people who were separated via DADT did so voluntarily.

[marct]

Also I wonder how many people who were separated via DADT did so voluntarily.

Interesting question, Tequila. I suspect that someone could make a case based on sexual orientation discrimination for not having DADT as a way of separating !

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).

[tequila]

Interesting question, Tequila. I suspect that someone could make a case based on sexual orientation discrimination for not having DADT as a way of separating !

I don't think there's any way to get separated for heterosexuality.

[karaka]

DADT gives homosexuals a way out if they feel uncomfortable in the service.

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.

Socially, we have moved to pretty much full recognition of a lot of Gay Rights areas

and clearly Canada has imploded as a result. [That's my dry wit, right there.]

[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