USNI Logo

From April 1993 Proceedings Magazine

By Kevin M. McCrane

On 2 December 1992 The Wall Street Journal ran an article on its feature page titled "Gays in the Military? A Cautionary Tale." On 18 December the Journal published two columns of readers' letters responding to the story.

As the author of the article, I saw nothing cautionary about the replies. The letters are angry. If there is a leavening in them, it is in the vindictiveness they reflect. The most bitter letters are from women. These are the ones that gave me pause, that addressed the problem of workplace sexuality with the response "Now you know what it's like to suffer the way we do," and I find myself in agreement with them.

This contribution proposes that the new administration alter its plan to lift the ban on sexuality in the military. It not only urges continuance of the ban but also an extension of that same ban on sexuality in the workplace to all other areas of government employment. To wit: service in the military is not a civil right. If you are too small or too fat, toothless, unbalanced, or lame, you are not acceptable for service in the military. In short, the Congress has seen fit to require discrimination in the interest of providing that only the most able should serve to protect the vital interests of the nation.

Gays and lesbians are not barred from serving in the military. It is reasonable to assume that when the first Continental forces took the field, gays were in their ranks. It is reasonable, too, to assume that every military cemetery contains the remains of dedicated gay men who gave their lives selflessly for their country in all past wars. Gays continue to serve today.

The issue today, per the claims of the American Civil Liberties Union, is not discrimination. It is the demand of the homosexual community to declare their sexuality openly, to carry their banner of overt sexuality into the military workplace.

The military cannot comply with this demand and continue to carry out the mission assigned by its commander-in-chief and mandated by the Congress. The reason it cannot comply is that declared sexuality in any workplace—civilian or otherwise—constitutes a near guarantee of tension among members of the work force, of endless and conscious alliances and blocs that form to support or oppose the appetites of the sexualist.

There is no reason for permitting such declarations of sexuality because they are disruptive. Though the phrase, "inimical to the good order and discipline of the service" may be a numbing one, it is indeed accurate.

Every individual who takes the oath of allegiance on entering the service understands that he has taken on certain responsibilities and concomitantly surrendered certain rights. It is submitted here that the homosexual who enters the military shall forgo his right of declaration of sexuality in the interest of maintaining high morale and cohesion. Failure to sustain the ban on declarations of sexuality by word or deed must have the inevitable and absolute result of creating tensions and distractions for every member of the military unit regardless of their own predilections.

There is a further reason for maintaining this ban. Raising the issue of publicly declaring one's sexual appetites is offensive. If the mark of civilization is indeed civility, the introduction of declared sexuality anywhere in society is at best tasteless and at worst disruptive.

The villain in this piece is neither discrimination nor gays and lesbians. The villain is declared sexuality in the workplace, coupled with sexual harassment. Therefore, the time may be now to extend this ban on declared sexuality. The womanizer who proclaims his sexuality by his habits and practice is as repugnant as anyone else who brings such unsettling and offensive behavior into the lives of his fellow workers.

I propose that a new executive order be issued instructing the military to declare that sexuality, whether by avowal or through the practice of sexual harassment, shall constitute grounds for separation from the service. I further propose that the Congress be requested to introduce legislation to broaden the compass of this order. Sexuality openly declared in the workplace constitutes a gross abuse of the rights of others. The case against sexual harassment has been established rather forcibly over the last few years. I propose that displays of open sexuality in the workplace in any government office by any government employee shall constitute grounds for dismissal from government employment.

An illuminating and highly publicized precedent for taking this course of action was established a few short years ago when Senator John Tower (R-TX) was rejected as a Secretary of Defense nominee by the Senate committee based on his moral turpitude, that is, womanizing and alcohol abuse.

An example was set at that time, but there was no follow-up on this golden opportunity to raise the standards of decency and behavior required of all government employees and office holders.

Now a new opportunity to take a step that could improve the lot of all working Americans has been presented to us. Putting these orders into effect would send a very clear message to the nation: Your sex life, your sexuality, is your business. Please confine your sexual declarations and practices to your off-duty hours and your own premises. You do not have the right to inflict these offensive declarations and practices on your fellow workers.

Extending this ban would send the refreshing message that there is room in our society for a sense of c1ecorumperhaps even good taste. A nice reminder that sexuality, like the other bodily functions, is only a fit subject for public discussion by the depraved or the puerile.

Twenty-five-hundred years ago, Aristotle made the insightful observation that politics is ethics. The truly great presidents seemed to have recognized this precept and acted on it to the benefit of the nation. The moral compass of this administration is going to be set early because the new President has chosen to raise this issue to one of extremely high visibility and rapid implementation, requiring no congressional confirmation but only the "stroke of a pen." I find his reasons for this decision unfathomable.

The moral tone, the quality of leadership are established at the top. This proposal could raise the standards of behavior in more than the military and government; industry would inevitably follow this lead. If dreams could be fulfilled this might even result in effecting a higher standard for public office holders.

The Clinton administration is going to present a new face to the nation. But which face will it be? A profile in courage or a full face wearing the facile smile of accommodation? I submit this proposal and close with the query, Who amongst ye shall lead?

Mr. McCrane is a former lieutenant in the U.S. Navy, having served tours of duty immediately following World War II and during the Korean War.