USNI Logo

From April 1993 Proceedings Magazine

By LT Neil P. Jennings, USN

The new commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces recently stated that he intends to reverse a 50-year-old ban against gays serving in the military. This is a highly controversial issue: if there were not good arguments on both sides of the current debate, the decision would be an easy one.

In addressing this issue, we need first to consider that the ultimate job of a national military organization is to preserve peace at home and to protect interests abroad. Nothing about being homosexual prevents a person from accomplishing any military job or task on par with an equally trained and equipped heterosexual. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that does not, as some might believe, degrade physical or mental competence. Gays are simply human beings like you and me. Just as dedicated, just as patriotic.

The debate, therefore, is a sociological issue. Do we, as a nation, believe that allowing homosexuals in the military would be fundamentally disruptive to the armed services, and if so, is there sufficient reason to exclude gays from serving?

What About Our Allies?

Since so many NATO countries permit homosexuals to serve, we should consider doing the same. At face value this seems a good argument, but we cannot be so naive as to give credence to such a transparent assertion.

The United States of America is not a world follower; it is the world leader. Our military is the standard by which other countries measure their own militaries, not vice versa. Just because they are allowing something doesn't mean that we should jump on the bandwagon and allow the same.

How many countries in the NATO alliance have militaries as large and diverse as our own? And how many countries have a true blue-water navy capable of long-range prolonged deployments? These are important considerations when you are assigning military members to live away from home for long periods of time.

Even within the alliance, the needs and requirements placed on military members differ from country to country. Besides, the only NATO ally we share a common heritage with, Great Britain, has rules similar to our own, wherein gays are excluded from serving. It does not make sense that we weigh such an important dilemma based on examples from cultures far different from our own.

Equal Representation

In recent decades homosexuals have made remarkable advances into mainstream society. Professed gays work as teachers, pastors, police officers, doctors, and politicians. In short, they are members of almost every profession in society. The military is perhaps one of the last bastions of non-tolerance of the gay lifestyle.

How can we continue to justify this exclusion when gays have made inroads into almost every area of society? In what ways would the face of the military change if gays were allowed not only to be members but also to express openly their sexual preference? Gays make up a certain percentage of society, and some believe they should therefore be allowed equal representation in the military.

In answering this, we need first to consider that the military is not well suited toward maintaining an exact cross section of society within its ranks. If it were, then over half of its personnel would be women. The harsh requirements of the job—obligation to forfeit one's life, if necessary—warrants this special dispensation. Therefore, there is no justification for including homosexuals in the military based on a quota concept.

Shared Quarters

Military members are regularly called upon to be genderless, sexless machines in the performance of difficult tasks. The close quarters encountered on board Navy ships do not allow for the distractions of sexual attraction, or even hints of such. As a non-gay, I personally am vehemently opposed to sharing cramped living areas with a homosexual—who mayor may not be looking at me in a sexual way. Privacy is nonexistent on board ships. The idea of non-gays being forced to share berthing and showering areas with admitted homosexuals is ludicrous.

Other members have stated that being forced to live under such conditions would cause them to look for another career. This sexual attraction—real or imagined—would influence productivity as well as morale. On board ship, it is an imposed hardship that those serving definitely should not have to put up with.

Separate Quarters

Is it possible for gays to have their own separate berthing areas and bathroom facilities? Absurd as it might seem, this is a valid question that should be addressed. Separate quarters could be managed, but the trade-off in cost and inefficiency would be considerable. In this fiscally conservative time, every expense accrued needs to be weighed against its benefit. It would not be cost effective to show special favoritism toward this one particular group of individuals simply because they are incompatible with the majority.

Moreover, consider the following. Putting gays in quarters with other gays would be tantamount to allowing males and females to share the same living and sleeping areas. Regardless of the good intentions of those involved, sexual activity would eventually proliferate. On long deployments, if individuals from mutually attracted groups are sharing close living spaces, sexual relations are going to occur. As one officer suggested, all-gay berthing areas could easily turn into swinging singles clubs.

In the Navy there is no group that gays are compatible to live in close quarters with, even themselves. Society in general does not have to endure the close-living arrangements and forced socialization experienced by members of the military. Those who have not had the opportunity lo serve may have trouble relating to this argument, but it is a pivotal point in a crucial issue, and it cannot be stressed enough.

Sex and the Military

According to our Uniform Code of Military Justice, sodomy is illegal. Groups who support reversal of Department of Defense policy against gays also advocate removal of the article that prohibits sodomy. Common sense dictates that it would be unrealistic to expect gays who openly avow their sexual preferences to remain celibate.

Consider the following: Admitting to being a homosexual is not simply admitting that you are not attracted to the opposite sex. It is stating that you desire to have sex with members of the same sex. This directly contradicts the chaste conditions one must accept while serving on board a ship at sea.

As concerns sex, there is no place for it—heterosexual or homosexual—in any cohesive combat unit. The military does not work if its members are regularly indulging. Admittedly it happens, but it is out of place even among peers. No matter how casual, once two people form a sexual bond, the decision-making capabilities of both are skewed with regard to their partners.

For example, in assigning duties and watches, it would be impossible not to show favoritism toward a sexual partner. Correspondingly, where favoritism occurs, morale is inversely and proportionately affected. How could a squadron of attack pilots be expected to fly and fight if perceived or real favoritism colored such an important decision as deploying personnel on a high-risk mission?

Gays Presently Serving

Regardless of whether or not it is legal, thousands of gays are presently serving on active duty, and there will always be gays in the armed forces. Since this is true, why can't we allow them to tell the truth about their sexuality? Isn't it hypocritical to let them serve but not allow them to tell the truth about themselves?

If the rule was suddenly repealed tomorrow, would all gays serving come out in the open with regard to their sexual preference? Certainly not. Some would fear potential discrimination in the assignment of jobs or in important yearly rankings. Many would merely desire to continue to keep their private lives to themselves. Conversely, an outspoken group of gay activists would challenge the limitations, expanding their sphere of influence, and flaunting their sexual preference at every opportunity. This group would be extremely disruptive to morale and order.

It is unclear just how high attrition among non-gays would be, but we can be assured that many outstanding individuals would leave the service on account of this group. Take a poll in any unit of the military and you will find individuals ready to leave if the ban against homosexuals is rescinded.

If homosexuals were allowed out of the closet, it would present military leaders with more administrative headaches. Requests for berthing area and work-center reassignments would skyrocket. In some cases, confessed gays would live in open hostility; some would actually be in physical jeopardy. This is not right, but it is unavoidable.

Sexual-Orientation Discrimination

One popular argument states that discrimination against gays is the same as racial or gender discrimination. If we say that we can't accept gays just because the majority do not agree with their lifestyle choices, then what is the difference between that and the way racial minorities used to be treated?

In today's moral climate, the difference is: Nobody can argue with another person for being a color or race other than white. With reference to racial background we are all equal in the eyes of society. With regard to sexual orientation, however, many in our culture believe homosexua1lity is deviant, antisocial behavior. Based on that, many will argue that homosexuals should not be accorded equal opportunity rights accorded racial minorities and women. I have to agree with the latter.

Moreover, consider that we would not enlist individuals whose religion did not allow them to fight on Sundays. That is discrimination against all people who hold those beliefs, but it is also justified. To be sure, it is proper, realistic, and efficient to exclude groups that don't fit in. The military is not a democracy; it is a fighting force. We need to keep this in mind.

Conclusions

Regardless of the arguments for or against, the integration of homosexuals into today's military is unnecessary. Homosexual individuals may be as patriotic, capable, and dedicated as any soldier presently serving. If it can be determined that the presence of openly gay men and women in the military detracts from its capabilities, however, then their presence cannot be justified.

Within the military community, homosexuality is seen as a behavioral handicap that makes one less able to blend in. We presently discriminate against those with physical handicaps because it is difficult to accommodate their special needs. In the same way, we should also continue to exclude gays from serving.

Military commanders already have tremendous burdens to overcome when commanding their units. Homosexuals in today's fighting units add notably to that stress. If the policy is changed, there will be no turning back. Once the ban is lifted, it will be impossible to return to simpler times.

Members serving at every level are currently speaking out against integration of gays into the armed services. Is this simply predictable resistance to change, or does this highly vocal group know something') A talented and loyal group of individuals make up today's fighting force, and they are the ones with the expertise to best evaluate proposed changes to the force makeup. Their voices are loud and in unity: Sexual-preference integration will work neither to the betterment of our military nor to the benefit of those serving in it.

Lieutenant Jennings flies A-4 Skyhawks und F-16N Vipers with the UF126—"Bandits"—Adversary Squadron based at Naval Air Station Miramar. Sun Diego. California. A veteran of Desert Storm, he flew 42 combat missions in the F-14 Tomcat while assigned 10 VF-I Wolfpack on board the USS Ranger (CV-61).