USNI Logo

From April 1993 Proceedings Magazine

By CAPT Philip Adams, USMCR, et al.

A riot at the Stonewall Inn in New York City in 1969 began the modern gay rights movement. We are committed to seeing that movement advanced so that all Americans are granted their full civil rights, which includes allowing gays and lesbians to serve their country in the military—unimpeded by bigotry, hate, violence, and poor leadership. The world is crying out for change. Will the United States—a country founded by persecuted peoples—be among the 'last of the democratic nations in a new world order to grant all of its citizens their basic civil rights? Do we have enlightened civilian and military leaders who are up to the task?

Who Are We?

We do not seek to make the comparison between racial discrimination and gay rights. We do not necessarily seek to refute all of the claims made by Commander Eugene Gomulka in his December 1992 Proceedings article, "Why No Gays." We simply seek to educate. The term "homosexual" is a clinical term, narrowly defined. For example, it does not include those who are bisexual. The U.S. Navy, however, has chosen to use the term more broadly. As quoted from the Naval Military Personnel Manual (Article 3630400), a homosexual is defined as: "a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, desires to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts." A homosexual act is further defined as "bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires."

Contemporary terms are "gay" for men and "lesbian" for women. We do not choose to be gay or lesbian (or somewhere in between). Most psychologists agree that our orientation is a part of our biological and psychological makeup. Therefore, there is nothing to cure or correct. The logical conclusion, then, is that our orientation is manifest as some sort of behavior on an individual basis. Most gays and lesbians pass as straight and are indistinguishable from the population at large. (Many gay officers are currently serving in the five armed services.) Some of us, however, are very queer—that is, we are distinguishable as gay or lesbian. Does that make us bad or less effective, or does it simply offend a small number of bigoted, narrow-minded, hate-oriented service members who adversely affect the morale of all military personnel?

Homophobia

Commander Gomulka boldly claims that homosexual behavior is not “normal conduct.” What kind of conduct is he referring to, and who determines what is normal for whom? We like to think of all people as individuals, whether they arc gay, lesbian, straight, or in between. He asserts that sexual orientation should be considered a private matter. We believe that it is; the government, however, docs not encourage privacy. Current laws, like the ban, make private behavior a public issue. Consider the case of Orlando Gotay, a young naval officer who was "forced to resign" because he was accused of being a homosexual. There was no evidence, no misconduct; there was simply an accusation. The naval service "outed" him in the national press as he desperately sought to preserve his privacy. No, the government has made this a public issue, and it must be addressed.

Commander Gomulka is afraid that gays or lesbians will seek public affirmation of their lifestyle. We are not sure what "lifestyle" means. If he means that we want the public to affirm our out-of-the-closet sexual orientation, then he is correct. We demand that we be treated as equals, and are not ashamed of our sexual orientation because it is not chosen. Could society respect gays or lesbians if we did not seek public affirmation? We do not believe that most gays and lesbians will come out of the closet should the ban be lifted. Not all gays and lesbians come out in the civilian community because of their fears about prejudice and career promotions. We do hope that in time, however, all gays and lesbians can come out of the coffin world of the closet and stand proudly among their peers, with dignity, integrity, and self-respect; that they will no longer be seen as evil, bad, or dirty, but as individuals who serve a special purpose in the success of civilization and modern society.

Manning the Guns

Commander Gomulka refers to the military. The military is not merely an institution; it is people brought together under the law to serve and protect all of the United States. As President Clinton iterates, "We don't have a person to waste." Recruitment and retention will not suffer by lifting the ban; no evidence supports such an argument. If it does, institute the draft or recruit more gays and lesbians, who will be happy to serve. After all, since so many have been discharged, recruiters could target the homosexual community to reach the services' quotas.

Tolerance for Diversity

If it is true that gays and lesbians comprise 10% of the population, is a 10% minority willing to risk acceptance by offending their fellow shipmates, Marines, or friends? Hardly! What we believe will happen once the ban is lifted is that, as more young people begin to know gays and lesbians as individuals, our nation will become more cohesive and less fragmented. In the words of Marine Corps General John Lejeune, all recruits will be "far better physically, mentally, and morally than they were when they enlisted."

We agree with the chaplain that "legislators and military leaders have a legitimate role to play in providing positive, acceptable role models, especially for young people whose minds and characters are in formative stages." All of our existing gay military personnel are the perfect start for such role models. Extensive military research and recent flag memos cite gays and lesbians as typically being overachievers and hard workers. Is not this the type of example we want to set for America's youth? Perhaps we will be better able to improve upon the concept of mission accomplishment rather than wasting valuable resources on witch-hunts.

Sex Maniacs?

Commander Gomulka seems to think that gays and lesbians have difficulty controlling their behavior. Does he know who his gay shipmates are? We do. We believe in the personal privacy of all service members, which is a separate issue from sexual misconduct. We hope that Commander Gomulka is not serious in saying that gays and lesbians in the military are analogous to alcoholics working in a liquor store. Is this an implication that a minority of gays and lesbians will begin large-scale molestations of the military population? The syllogism here is incomplete. Why would we see unrestrained behavior in the military when there is no evidence of large-scale unrestrained behavior in the civilian workplace?

It is unfortunate that Commander Gomulka feels free to use dated statistics in his sermon. Professionals who understand statistical research are well aware that data can prove almost any thesis. But, does that make the thesis true, and to what degree of error? His evidence of "widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men" is based on a limited Kinsey Institute report that is contrasted with a University of Chicago survey. Two separate sample populations can yield significant disparities. It is ridiculous to assert that 71% of gay men have had more than 500 partners. No one likes to be accused of something that may contain some shred of truth, but is untrue overall. Our Vietnam veterans did not like being accused of being baby killers, and our gay and lesbian service members do not like to be accused of being sex maniacs. Perhaps military leaders and chaplains should consider attending a local Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P-FLAG) meeting. Then they could begin to dismantle their homophobia and see sexual minorities as real people rather than as negative stereotypes.

If gays and lesbians are sexually promiscuous, it may be linked to society's refusal to affirm same-sex relationships. It is discriminatory for an unmarried heterosexual couple to be denied the same housing benefits that married couples enjoy. We argue the same for same-sex couples. It is time the military redesigned its housing regulations so that each service member is compensated for his or her individual contribution. Service members who choose to have large families should pay their fair share. Treat everyone equally, regardless of their marital status, and eliminate preferential treatment for only one type of family.

Sexual Misconduct

Sexual promiscuity is not the real issue. The real issue is: What is the propensity of gays and lesbians to manifest their behavior as sexual misconduct? To that issue, we address the following questions: How many gay rapes have taken place in the military versus straight rapes? How many violent crimes have been committed by gays and lesbians versus straights?

In light of recent scandals in the Catholic church, should we assume that all priests are child molesters? Based on the cover-up by key naval officers involved with Tailhook, should we assume that the naval establishment encourages molestation of women? Hardly! Such logic is faulty. Should gays and lesbians violate sexual misconduct rules, they should be prosecuted to the same degree straights would be prosecuted for related offenses. Unfortunately, most heterosexual misconduct is swept under the rug by career-oriented officers. Treat each person separately and assume that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Working Together

Commander Gomulka is quick to point out some startling statistics on gay suicides, as well as gay and lesbian alcoholism rates. We do not dispute these claims; we query, rather, what is the logical conclusion one could draw from this data? Perhaps, that gays and lesbians are naturally self-destructive. Or, that they are repressed by an intolerant society that really has not taken time to understand people who have same-sex orientations. Is Commander Gomulka aware that from 250,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian youths are rendered homeless each year by traditional families that throw them out solely because of their sexual orientation?

We also take offense to Commander Gomulka's less-than-Christian view that, by virtue of being gay or lesbian, one will put an undue burden on the military medicine program. All recruits, regardless of sexual orientation, are screened for exposure to HIV. Those service members who are HIV positive or who have AIDS need medical treatment regardless of the provider source-period I Further, HIV infection rates for gays are declining and are increasing for straights. The gay community has been hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic and is in the best position to help the military reduce AIDS cases through education—not a naive insistence that only gays are infective. The military medical establishment has taken an aggressive role among the leaders in medical research and drug trials for persons with AIDS. As a nation, we need to work together to fight this great plague. Many gays and lesbians have lost friends and lovers to AIDS and are all too aware of the risks of infection and the need to protect ourselves and others from it.

Leadership Failure

The real issue is whether we currently have a military leadership failure. The current "model" Pentagon system for fighting bias is unresponsive and repressive. Oftentimes, those who complained about racial or sexual mistreatment claim their careers were ruined by psychiatric evaluations, criminal investigations, or lowered job ratings, while the offenders went unpunished. Many women who are sexually harassed report that they are investigated as being lesbians, are denied promotions, and are transferred to remote locations. Military officials insist that their policies are fundamentally sound, but Army Chief of Staff General Gordon R. Sullivan admits the military has not been "completely successful in the execution of the program." If the program is there, why are military leaders so afraid to use it? The military's equal-opportunity system clearly lacks the independence to conduct objective investigations and, typically, military commanders are more concerned with their careers than with the truth.

The last vestige of the existing argument for banning homosexuals from military service is morale and discipline. Who is ultimately responsible for morale and discipline? The commander-in-chief. Who carries out his orders? The chain of command! Every leader in the military establishment has the responsibility to carry out his or her orders in the spirit in which they were issued. We believe that many military leaders are unqualified to lead within or outside a military environment. Once the ban is lifted, leaders—true leaders—in the new world order will continue to include all valuable personnel in their organizational objectives, regardless of sexual orientation. Those who cannot are incapable of leadership in the upcoming millennium.

Leaving the service will not change the makeup of the civilian work force where gays and lesbians also abound. What we need are strong, enlightened men and women who are as capable of leading our nation in peace as they are in times of armed conflict. If there is a moral argument, then all moral issues must be included, not just the homosexual one. While many may disagree with our view, it is important to emphasize the need to separate the values of church leaders from the constitutional guarantees of the state.

Conclusion

We believe that by lifting the ban against homosexuals, the naval establishment will receive the following benefits:

• A savings of time for the Naval Investigative Service that would allow it to spend more time pursuing legitimate criminal cases
• Significant budget savings in a depressed economy by eliminating costly witch-hunts
• Higher quality of life for all military personnel in a population that accurately reflects the diversity of the entire U.S. population
• Increased personal integrity for all service members who can be who they are—not what others would have them be.

Homosexuals currently serve openly in the armed forces of Canada, Australia, Israel, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, and France. These countries have assimilated gays and lesbians in their ranks. Do our military leaders have the modern leadership skills necessary to openly accept homosexuals in their ranks and conduct business as usual once the ban is lifted? We are willing to help if our leaders are willing to listen. In the words of Rodney King, a victim of oppression and violence by bigots in uniform, "Can we all just get along?"

Captain Adams is a Naval Academy graduate who served with the 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, as an infantry platoon commander and rifle company executive officer. He further served as Commanding Officer, Headquarters Company, Weapons Training Battalion (MCRD), Camp Pendleton. California. He is a founding member of the Service Academy Gay and Lesbian Alumni Association and a member of the Bay Area Military Freedom Project founded by Keith Meinhold. The shadow coauthors are all active-duty naval officers who serve in a variety of communities nationwide.