USNI Logo

From April 1993 Proceedings Magazine

Honor Bound: A Gay American Fights for the Right to Serve His Country

Joseph Steffan. New York: Villard Books, 1992.245 pp. Photos. $22.00 ($19.80).

Reviewed by Major Melissa Wells-Petry, U.S. Army

From the flat plains and grain elevators of Warren, Minnesota, to life behind the iron gates of the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Honor Bound is Joe Steffan's story of his journey from high school track star to nuclear submarine enthusiast. It is also the story—at least in general terms—of Steffan's journey from sexual repression to acceptance of his homosexual orientation.

By his second year at the Naval Academy, Steffan finally "came out" to himself. That year he told a chaplain he was homosexual. Later he told two fellow midshipmen. In his fourth year at the academy, word of his homosexuality traveled further. Something, or someone, prompted an investigation. Suddenly Steffan was faced with the official question: Are you homosexual? Yes, Steffan answered. When confronted, he told the truth. Two weeks before graduation, he resigned after admitting his homosexuality before an academic board.

Steffan's book is full of interesting and sometimes bittersweet details about his life at the Naval Academy: plebes chopping through the hallways, sounding off as they squared corners; dangerous encounters with "firsties"; the press of academics; the thrill of singing the national anthem at the Army-Navy football game.

His other journey—the realization and self-acceptance of his homosexuality—is revealed to the reader more cautiously. We never really know what led Steffan to a dark corner of the playing field one night before mid-terms in his second year, where he sat and cried, where he realized avoiding his homosexuality had become “a lie whose perpetuation was beginning to sicken" him, where he took his first step toward self-acceptance.

Steffan never tells us of his loves or laughs or tears along this journey. He never mentions the men who sparked his attraction or the encounters that marked growing awareness of his homosexuality. He never lets us see the real, human, tangible side of his sexual sojourn. The portrayal is strangely diagnostic, almost as if Steffan's homosexuality was all in his head, a mind game he had to deal with and finally win.

Honor Bound no doubt takes its title from Steffan's theme that he was discharged from the Navy for telling the truth about being gay. Steffan said, "I really hadn't done anything wrong. I had simply told the truth about who I was." In another passage, he muses. "Surely I could be punished for doing something, but could I be punished for simply 'being' who I was?”

Later, when he sued the Navy for reinstatement, Steffan refused to answer questions about his sexual conduct either while at the academy or in the interim years. Honor Bound itself, with its studious avoidance of any hint of past, present, or future homosexual conduct, is an attempt to bolster the unreal proposition that a person can "simply be" homosexual but have no desire or intent to engage in homosexual conduct—ever. Even Steffan tells us that while at the academy, he "wanted to start meeting other gay people, to start dating and having sex like everyone else."

When Steffan was confronted with his own statements of homosexuality, he told the truth, He forthrightly admitted that he is homosexual. But is this the whole of the matter? Honor Bound barely touches on the rear moment of truth. In Steffan's second year he discussed his homosexuality with a chaplain who told him his "decision to stay at the Academy and live a double life would be a difficult one." but one that only Steffan could make. In his autobiography, Steffan takes little notice that for him, a career in the Navy meant either a life of celibacy or a life of hiding. Apparently, Steffan was willing to live a lie, although not to tell one.

Is this choice too hard? Is it too much to expect individuals to choose between celibacy and lies? Yes. On the other hand, is it appropriate for the military to ignore the potential adverse impact of homosexual, conduct within the ranks? No. So we finally reach the dilemma Honor Bound scrupulously avoids.

This dilemma is not about who people "are," or what their "status" is. This dilemma springs from the remarkable truth of sexual dynamics—in this case, that homosexuals engage in homosexual sex. If the military's policy goal is to deter and limit the occurrence of homosexual sex within the ranks, it can do this only by asking homosexuals to remain celibate or by excluding homosexuals. Since the former is unrealistic, and may seem inhumane, excluding homosexuals is the only way to strike an appropriate balance between the desires of individuals and the needs of the service.

Steffan's trauma at leaving the academy two weeks before graduation was devastating. No doubt the academy was traumatized as well by the loss of this talented young man. But would this mutual loss be any less traumatic sometime in the future? Would Steffan be happy and healthy, hiding his homosexual lifestyle for years, maybe for a lifetime? Would the Navy be well served by an officer who broke the rules because he himself decided the rules were "wrong''') Would it be wise—or honest—for Steffan as well as the Navy to continue to invest in his career in the hope that he would never be "caught" in homosexual conduct?

Except for Steffan's recognition that he could be discharged for "doing something," Honor Bound never faces up to the real questions of whether homosexuality-from the perspective of the individual as well as the armed forces-is compatible with military service. Steffan's lawyers argue he should be allowed to serve because the Navy had no "evidence" except Steffan's own statement that he was homosexual. Steffan never tells us exactly what that statement means to him, what it means in terms of his real life existence with other human beings.

I think it means Steffan is a person who does—and will continue to—love and laugh and cry and have sex with other men. For a variety of reasons, the military has determined that such conduct would have an adverse impact on good order, discipline, and morale—and hence on combat readiness.

Thus, the Navy was also honor bound in Steffan's case. Its highest duty is to keep its focus on the mission-fighting and winning this nation's wars. Honor Bound passionately sets forth the plea for individual "justice." It all but forgets the fact that—for all of us who serve or want to serve—individual wants, needs, and desires are and must be subordinated to the needs of the service.

A ten-year veteran of the U.S. Army, Major Wells-Petry was deployed to Kuwait as a Command Judge Advocate during Desert Storm and currently works in the Judge Advocate General Corps in the Pentagon. She is the author of Exclusion: Homosexuals and the Right to Serve (Regnery Gateway, 1991).

Exclusion: Homosexuals and the Right to Serve.

Maj. Melissa Wells-Petry, U.S. Army. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1993. 230 pp. Ind. Notes. $20.00 ($18.00)

Reviewed by Vice Admiral Dudley L. Carlson, U.S. Navy (Retired)

Major Wells-Petry has written a most scholarly work that examines arguments that have been made advocating the admission of homosexuals into the military service of the United States, and, in a thoroughly detailed and lucid examination of the record—both historical and judicial—she validates the correct denial of such service. She points out "there has been a strong objection to homosexual conduct which has prevailed in Western culture for seven centuries; sanctions for homosexual acts have been recorded as early as the year 1444."

Proponents of homosexuals in the military frequently use the denial-of-rights argument in their efforts. Such arguments, the attorney-author points out, are without merit. The military by its very mission and constitutional charter is discriminatory. The military excludes, that is, discriminates against, single parents, felons, handicapped individuals, conscientious objectors, and persons with any of a number of medical conditions.

The simple point that so many well-intentioned but inadequately informed citizens misunderstand is that the single mission of the armed forces is to protect the vital national interests of the United States worldwide, at whatever level of conflict is required. This capacity is not enhanced by the social engineering that is so politically correct in our current era. In fact, such efforts in a host of similarly socially correct initiatives weaken our military's ability to do that for which they are charged—and for which taxpayers invest billions of dollars.

Early in her book Major Wells-Petry discusses the analytical difficulty in bifurcating status and conduct. In the Army's view, she reports, an obvious connection exists between an admission of homosexuality and the propensity to commit homosexual acts over time. To this reviewer, such a conclusion seems obvious and valid.

On the matter of morality, she points out that in military life there is a higher code, termed honor, which holds its society to strict accountability. It is not desirable that the standard of the Army come down to the requirements of a criminal code. "This higher code termed honor is much more a part of everyday military life than might be apparent to those not in uniform."

To those who would compare racial discrimination with homosexual discrimination, the major states that racial segregation in the military was a sad expression of a larger segregation based on some view of what was "socially acceptable" at the time. Homosexuality, unlike race, affects military security and privacy concerns, as well as on-assignment and deployment considerations. A member of a racial minority is not subject to blackmail on pain of revealing his minority membership. Homosexuality, however, is recognized as a basis for blackmail. Simply put, the possibility of avowed gays and lesbians adversely affecting military interests on several fronts is very real.

The threat of AIDS is discussed in this book as well as the general public's aversion to gay individuals in that they form the great majority of those infected. People's tolerance of those infected is very low, in that the disease is most often acquired through sexual behavior. All military personnel are potential blood donors; their blood type is identified on the dog tags they wear. No one in combat would want a homosexual as a potential blood donor even though his most recent blood test might have been satisfactory.

The depth and detail of Major Wells-Petry's work is absolute. She has made a significant contribution to the body of work on this subject that every concerned citizen and military professional would benefit from reading: even—or especially—the residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!

Admiral Carlson was the Chief or Legislative Affairs and then the Chief of Naval Personnel prior to his retirement in 1987. He subsequently served on the staffs of Senator Phil Gramm of Texas and then-Senator Pete Wilson of California while they were members or the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is also a former Executive Director of the Navy League.