This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Aren’t heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals, entitled to certain rights when it comes to joining the armed forces?
Or does the concept of fights become irrelevant in discussing the privilege and burden of serving one’s country?
The new commander-in-chief evidently miscalculated the depth and scope of the opposition within the military, Congress, and the population at large to his Pledge to lift the Department of Defense ban on admitting avowed homosexuals to the armed forces. And, he and his aides apparently failed to familiarize themselves with all of the arguments for retaining the ban; arguments which they mistakenly labeled as evidence of prejudice and bigotry but which, in fact, extend far beyond prejudice to issues of law, privacy, health, morality, and culture.
The seriousness of the opposition and the depth of the disagreement finally apparent, President Clinton beat a hasty retreat and, through the political adroitness of Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and Senator Sam Nunn !£>-GA)—both wise in the ways of compromise—agreed )o a delay and to submit to Congress a proposal for end- tog the ban on gays. As a part of the agreement, the services will cease asking recruits about their sexual orientation and will transfer homosexuals who are being Processed for discharge solely for being homosexuals to toactive duty in standby reserve status, pending a final tosolution of this issue (presumably by mid-year).
The delay may not please zealots on either side of the argument, but it provides a welcome period of relief in Which to sort out the complex arguments surrounding this important and divisive issue. Unfortunately, the debate thus far has been carried on primarily in the news media—particularly on television and radio talk shows—
By Captain James F. Kelly, Jr., U.S. Navy (Retired)
which have by now milked the topic of its entertainment value but have also obfuscated, confused, or oversimplified the real issues. They badly need clarification.
I have thus far participated in two network television talk shows and one interview on CNN. With the exception of the latter (which was not a debate format), the sides of the argument were viewed sim- plistically. On one program, the debate quickly polarized into arguments as to whether or not homosexual behavior is perverted, sinful, and disgusting or, on the other hand, an acceptable and wholesome alternative to heterosexual behavior. On the other show, neither the host nor the other guest, a lesbian minister who had been discharged from the Army, seemed to want to move very far beyond the single issue of the “right” of all Americans to serve in the armed forces, if qualified, notwithstanding the abundance of other problems and injustices that would result, directly or indirectly, from lifting the ban.
In examining these issues, let’s begin with the right-to- serve question. Do all Americans who are qualified have a right to serve in the armed forces? The answer depends, of course, on how one defines qualified.
Clearly, the five services, with the support of the legislative and executive branches, discriminate against women by denying them—even if they are fully qualified—the right to serve in most combat roles. This discrimination is not based on physical defect, temperament, skill, or lack of intelligence—the services already utilize those criteria in discriminating against some applicants— but rather on the benign condition of being female. This discrimination is justified by those who defend it with such statements as “the public does not yet favor sending women to combat or placing them in serious risk of capture where they could be sexually abused.”
Consider, then, that a January 1993 poll conducted by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News revealed that 50%
of Americans polled (up from 49% the previous month) disapproved of gays and lesbians serving in the military, while only 41% (down from 46% the previous month) approved of lifting the ban. As the problems associated with allowing declared homosexuals to serve become better recognized, public opposition may increase. If public opinion matters in the case of gender discrimination, doesn’t it matter also in determining whether or not gays should serve in the military?
The armed forces also discriminate based on age, which, per se, has nothing to do with ability or quality of service. Americans are living longer, staying healthier, and are more active than ever. Yet, they are forced out of their military careers at an arbitrary age; this, in spite of the fact that their services come cheaply, given retirement costs and the loss to the services of their skills and experience. But this is acceptable to the citizenry, presumably because of the popular notion that war is a business for young men (and women?). Actually, discrimination based on age is more a method of providing career opportunities for younger members, a concept known popularly as the “up or out” method of career management. But never mind. Public opinion supports restricting the right to serve based on age. Why, then, shouldn’t public opinion matter regarding restrictions on the rights of gays to serve?
Age, like gender, is a benign human condition. Older Americans, like women and minorities, are protected in the U.S. workplace by equal-employment-opportunity legislation. Were the armed forces subject to such legislation, such discrimination as is practiced against women and older Americans would be struck down by the courts.
But, of course, service in the military is not just another occupation regulated by equal-opportunity legislation. That’s because the armed forces exist solely for the narrow purposes of fighting and winning wars or deterring them. Thus, the military is permitted to select the best fitted in its recruitment and retention processes.
Accordingly, the services have been permitted to discriminate, if you will, against Americans with disabilities without incurring the consequences of the Americans with Disabilities Act. They reject for service those who are considered by arbitrary standards to be too thin, too fat, too tall, or too short; those with insufficient teeth; and those who are sight, hearing, or speech impaired. Similarly, they spurn those with AIDS, heart disease, venereal diseases, cancer, and various other conditions. Moreover, they do not provide job opportunities to felons or to single parents who are struggling to find work. They cannot always comply with the Office of Safety and Health Administration requirements regarding safety in the workplace, particularly in an operational setting such as battle. Neither do they pay overtime or holiday pay, state and federal laws notwithstanding.
The point is, the services do not exist to provide equal opportunities to homosexuals any more than they are required to admit those whose religious beliefs encourage bigamy or the sacrifice of live animals. There are laws against bigamy and animal cruelty; so also are there laws in 35 states against sodomy, which is a fairly universal practice among male homosexuals.
Implicit in all of this is the well-established principle that no individual or class of individuals has a right to serve. Military service is a privilege and a burden; dangerous at times, but never a right. Should it become a right mandated by the courts, then the singular reason for the existence of the armed forces will be subordinated to a social agenda regulated by Department of Labor codes and quotas.
Federal courts have generally supported military judgment in determining fitness to serve, notwithstanding the recent ruling by a federal judge in California that the ban on gays is unconstitutional. The federal courts have consistently rejected the civil rights arguments of gay rights activists in seeking to legitimize their presence in the services by getting the ban overturned.
A standard argument used by advocates in campaign' ing for an end to the ban is that persons should be judged only by their behavior and performance, not their orientation. While this sounds reasonable enough on the surface, how, in actuality, do you separate homosexual behavior from homosexual orientation? Indeed; it is the behavior that helps define and demonstrate the orientation, and without the behavior, the orientation would be moot. Unless a homosexual elects to be celibate, he or she will eventually engage in homosexual behavior.
This line of discussion generally provokes the comment that what occurs off duty between consenting adults is their own business and not the services’. But it’s not that simple. Off-duty conduct of its members is very much a concern of the military if that conduct happens to be unlawful. Sodomy is an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and under the laws of most states. It is true that these laws are often only loosely enforced except in connection with another crime, but to permit acknowledged gay men to serve at least in the absence of a vow of celibacy—which is unrealistic—would be tantamount to condoning, at least tacitly, a practice prohibited by law, on or off duty. Congress could, of course, amend the code to delete sodomy as an offense, but il seems indisposed to do so.
Also, the term “off duty” has a vastly different connotation in the military than it does in the civilian community. All service members are, in a sense, always on duty; some, like commanding officers, are in an actual sense as well. For personnel in a combat zone or shipboard environment, on-duty and off-duty status are really not clearly delineated.
Most of the arguments in favor of lifting the ban deal with the rights of homosexuals. But how about the rights of heterosexuals? Many, if not most, of the straights interviewed on the subject express concern over what they perceive would be a violation of their right to a reasonable degree of privacy. Privacy in many military settings-— certainly in most shipboard environments—is a scarce luxury. In the seagoing services, personnel live in extremely close proximity to one another and frequently use common toilet and shower areas at the same time. To fully comprehend the cultural shock most recruits experience in adjusting to cramped quarters and total lack of pri-
vacy—particularly in a ship—one must experience it firsthand, something that President Clinton and most advocates of lifting the ban have not done.
Of course, homosexuals have always been in the ships and the barracks. But they were there in clear violation of lhe ban and, with few exceptions, were quiet and discreet about it. Most concealed their orientation and lived, *n effect, a double life—or lived a lie, as many of them Put it—to pursue their military careers. It is the wish to he able to openly acknowledge their sexual orientation, or at least not to have to conceal it, that motivates most of [hem to seek elimination of the ban.
, Arguably, lifting the ban would attract more gays to military service and result in changes in their behavior. It is not unreasonable to expect that they will feel free to talk ahout their relationships and sexual urges, if not to demon- shate them, just as heterosexuals now do. Undressing, showering, and sleeping a few feet away from persons who openly proclaim their Sexual attraction toward members of the same sex is no different to many heterosexuals than being naked in front of, showering with, or sleeping next to members of the opposite sex. Homosexuals generally respond to this hy alleging, first, that they have always shown restraint in the Past and would continue to do so, and second, that the notion that lifting the ban ^ould result in gays |n the service becom- *ng more sexually aggressive is a myth resulting from extreme homophobia.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. We really don’t know what behavioral changes would follow a lifting of the ban.
Circumstances, at any rate, would then be Manifestly different and there would be far less reason to conceal one’s sexual orientation. Few in the military expect gays to start forcing themselves upon heterosexuals. Heterosexual Males do not generally live in fear of being victims of sexual assault. In any event, that is not the issue. The lssue is privacy.
This cannot be dismissed as merely a frivolous concern because it is based on deeply socialized moral and cul- Mral attitudes and taboos in our society. These attitudes and religious teachings are not intended to discriminate against individuals but rather to discourage behavior that is taught by most religions to be immoral. The perceived rights of the homosexual minority to serve in the military cannot be permitted to trample underfoot the rights of the heterosexual majority to a reasonable amount of privacy any more than the alleged right of women to serve in combat should dictate their immediate assignment to small combatants and being forced to share berthing spaces and head facilities with males.
Advocates of removing the ban argue that behavior can be regulated to ensure good order and discipline just as it was when women were integrated into ships. In fact, codifying prohibited behavior in anticipation of lifting the ban will be exceedingly difficult. Will hand-holding and embracing be permitted? Athletes, after all, do so without criticism. How about males dancing together and kissing at military clubs? And what sort of punishment will suit the infraction? Can you imagine the reaction of the gay community if the services try to discharge a member for a few harmless displays of genuine affection? The prospect of gay marriages involving service members would also create questions of eligibility for service benefits, housing, allowances, insurance, and certain categories of assignments.
Rules can be drawn up, to be sure. Gay rights advocates, however, can be expected to challenge many of them. Demands by the gay community may start with simply dropping the ban, but they will almost certainly not stop with that. The ultimate aim will be to normalize gay behavior to the point where no distinction between homosexual and heterosexual characteristics or lifestyles is permitted to be made.
Again, the gay response to this is generally something to the effect that there is no gay lifestyle. Gays, they argue, come in all sizes, shapes, and lifestyles. Many do concede, however, that there is a distinct gay culture. The armed forces have a distinct culture as well; it is forged from, among other things, discipline, uniformity, tradition, self-sacrifice, and a dedication to high moral principles. It is largely a warrior culture that prizes assertiveness and tenacity. These are traditional masculine traits (in contrast with, for example, the traditional feminine traits of compassion and nurturing).
By virtue of hormonal chemistry, males traditionally exhibit greater tendencies toward aggressive behavior, useful to fighting and winning wars. Indeed, they are the perpetrators of nearly all of the violence in the world. This is not to say by any means that all persons of either gender or sexual orientation fit neatly into a rigidly defined culture model, or that persons of either gender or sexual orientation are not capable of displaying assertiveness or tenacity or other traditional military qualities. It is simply to observe that a distinct gay subculture can be characterized and that it is perceived, at least by many, to be incompatible with traditional military culture, values, and conventions.
We have learned much about the effect of organizational culture in forming leaders and building organizational cohesion. Dozens of books and scholarly papers have been written on this subject in the last decade. A review of this literature is beyond the scope of this essay, but the importance of a durable, cohesive culture to the health of an organization and the regulation of organizational behavior are widely recognized. The introduction of subcultures or countercultures into a strong, uniform organizational culture such as the armed forces can cause serious problems unless the subculture is quickly assimilated into the main culture.
The introduction of women into nontraditional roles in the military—particularly the seagoing Navy—constituted a profound challenge to that deeply established, uniform, traditional male culture. The subsequent resistance to the introduction of a female subculture may have contributed in part to the behavior exhibited at Tailhook. The resistance will probably continue, sub rosa, until women are finally accorded equal treatment and respect in terms of access to combat roles.
One of the little-noted post-Tailhook remedial actions by the Navy was to drop tradition as a value of the “new” Navy. But it isn’t that simple.Tradition won’t just go away. People are still motivated by tradition; they fight and die for tradition. It isn’t easily trashed.
With the Navy in the midst of a traumatic transformation toward a more androgynous culture, introducing a gay subculture to the primary culture could have an extremely negative effect upon an organization that relies upon cohesion, uniformity, and selfless discipline. The gay response is generally that the services will just have to live with and make the best of it.
Advocates of ending the gay ban also insist that si mi" lar arguments were used to discourage integration of black* and women into the operational services, but the issue* were, and are, profoundly different. As General Colin Powell has so clearly stated, race and gender are benign characteristics; homosexuality derives from behavior. It is wrong and always has been wrong to discriminate agains1 benign human characteristics such as race or gender. Attitudes toward homosexuality, however, are based on behaviors, not benign characteristics.
Summary
This debate threatens to be lengthy and contentious. I' is critical that the voices of all Americans, both in and out of the services, be heard. Consequently, all servicemen should be encouraged to communicate their own views> not by displaying belligerence or antagonism toward gays- but by corresponding with their elected representatives. I* only senior spokesmen continue to speak out in opposition, the debate will increasingly take on generational overtones, with our older military leaders perceived as defending the status quo and appearing to be out of touch with the more tolerant views of contemporary society.
The debate is also taking on some gender overtones since a substantially greater percentage of females favor lifting the ban than do males. Heterosexual women appeal to perceive fewer problems in living with lesbians than heterosexual males do in living with gay men. That be because women tend to be more tolerant in their view* and more open regarding public displays of affection. This is not to say, of course, that many women do not strongly favor retaining the ban. Then, too, homosexual behavior between women does not normally involve sodomy and does not, in general, raise the serious legal and health concerns that male homosexual behavior does.
It is true that many NATO countries have eliminated bans on homosexuals serving in the armed forces; some never had them. Many, however, still treat homosexuals differently, and several—even with no ban in effect— strongly encourage those who are openly gay to leave th® service or else restrict their assignments to certain support roles.
Britain continues to maintain its ban on homosexuals in the military. Canada and Australia recently eliminated theirs, giving us an uncommon opportunity to observe their experience first before implementing a drastic step which will in my view profoundly impact recruiting, retention, morale, health, and discipline in the armed forces of the United States.
Dr. Kelly served more than 30 years in a wide variety of ship and staff assignments. He commanded the guided-missile destroyer Parsons (DDG-33), the guided-missile cruiser Fox (CG-33), and the destroy®1 tender Dixie (AD-14), as well as the U.S. Navy Personnel Research and Development Center. He has been a frequent contributor to th® Proceedings and is a regular columnist for Navy Times.
i
I