USNI Logo

From April 1993 Proceedings Magazine

By LCDR Robert E. Morabito, USN

Good leaders recognize opportunities where others see only problems. The upheaval caused by the invasion of gay rights over the once unassailable gunwales of naval tradition provides an opportunity to demonstrate rational leadership at a revolutionary point in naval history.

Already we've heard hysterical, hyperbolic predictions of massive defections by those who loathe the immorality of homosexuality; of gays lusting for their heterosexual shipmates; and of impulsive acts of violence against crew members who have come out of the closet. This type of rancor tends to feed on itself and can quickly get out of hand. Come, let us reason together.

However specious the new administration's justification for lifting the military's ban against homosexuals, this action will trigger problems requiring herculean efforts if a devastating effect on military readiness is to be avoided. Yet a commonsense examination of the facts, divorced from emotion, reveals more soup than substance.

To begin with, an executive order cannot overturn the Uniform Code of Military Justice's prohibition against the sexual practices of homosexuals (Manual for Courts Martial, United States, Article 125). Only Congress has the authority to change the code. Thus, despite a presidential edict, overt homosexual activity violates military law and will continue to be punishable under the code.

Second, President Clinton stated during his campaign that he believes it is not justifiable to dismiss military members solely because they state that they are homosexual. Lifting the ban means that when John Q. Sailor tells you he is gay, you no longer have the authority to place him in the dismissal tumbril because of his revelation. It does not mean that you have to accept or endorse the tenets of homosexuality. Johnny is legally protected from any dismissal or recrimination that could result from his avowed sexual preference. If, on the other hand, Johnny decides to act on his sexual proclivities, he is subject to judicial handling. The overall effect is similar to a sailor telling you he is an adulterer, an act punishable under Article 134 of the Manual for Courts Martial, United States. The mere statement—even if true—does not subject him to disciplinary action. If he overtly participates in adulterous behavior, however, he can and should be disciplined.

This legal prohibition also stops the Navy from sanctioning homosexual relationships through extending them housing privileges, spousal benefits, et cetera. Until sodomy is no longer a criminal offense, little can be done officially that would promote the gay and lesbian lifestyle. Thus, overturning the ban by executive order results in no more than placating special interest groups by fulfilling an ill-advised campaign promise.

"What about acceptance training to alleviate problems in integrating homosexuals into the mainstream?" you ask. Although this method has proved effective in melding diverse groups, it would be futile and unwise in this instance. Acceptance training is conducted to dispel myths that one group holds about another. This situation is not represented in the relations of heterosexuals to homosexuals. The majority of heterosexuals in the military find homosexual activity repulsive, unnatural, and immoral. These are beliefs ingrained through years of cultural, religious, and familial training. There is simply no sound evidence to refute these convictions.

Can we justifiably require anyone to accept a behavior that is illegal? It would be incongruent for a leader to take the position that an illegal behavior deserves authoritative approval. Again, the Uniform Code of Military Justice would prohibit the Navy from requiring acceptance training and thus officially sanctioning this behavior.

Nonetheless, if this training were conducted, the end result likely would be the repression of strongly held moral and cultural beliefs. You may initially mute dissenting behavior, but you will not overturn deeply held moral convictions. These repressed feelings might be revealed in other, potentially more harmful ways. This in turn would be contrary to the unit cohesiveness and readiness the leader is trying to foster. Acceptance training in this circumstance is counterproductive.

What we must do is ensure that the fundamental rights of all military members are protected. No one should be subject to ridicule, harassment, or physical harm for any reason. Naval leaders must make it clear that all individuals—regardless of their views or predilections—will be respected. Gay bashing is no more acceptable after lifting the ban than it was before it was lifted. Jokes with sexual connotations are out of place regardless of the group you are with. Gender-neutral language and behavior is the only acceptable reaction in a professional environment.

None of these attitudes sanctions homosexuality. As in the case of the adulterer, we are merely acknowledging that some people will engage in the behavior. If they do while they are in the military, they can be court-martialed. On the other hand, if they simply avow their affinity but take no manifest action, they can be permitted to serve with honor and distinction.

We would be wise to adopt the approach of the Australian Defence Force. In overturning their homosexual ban, they properly relegated sexual behavior to the realm of a private matter for each individual. As long as anyone's activities are not unlawful or inconsistent with the military requirements for order, discipline, morale, and readiness, the Australian Defence Force takes no interest in them.

U.S. naval leaders are thus presently challenged to alleviate the fears that pervade the fleet. No one should be required to accept homosexual behavior. Lifting the ban means an individual who decides to publicize a homosexual orientation will continue to serve with others who do not ascribe to this view. Absent overt action on one's desires, no offense is committed. Conversely, any sexual advances or gesticulations—regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or victim—are contrary to good order and must be dealt with.

Naval leaders must demonstrate how problems can be turned into opportunities. Confidently and reasonably steering through the hazards of social change will make us a stronger, more professional Navy.

Commander Morabito is Chief of the Surface Electronic Warfare Operations at the Joint Electronic Warfare Center in San Antonio. Texas. Prior to enlisting, he served as a youth counselor for six years. His naval career has included serving as chief engineer on the USS Aylwin (FF-I (81) and USS Wainwright (CG-28) prior to attending the College of Naval Command and Staff at the Naval War College.