This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
all equal in the eyes of society. With regard to sexual orientation, however, many in our culture believe homosexuality 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 and F-16N Vipers with the UF- 126—“Bandits”—Adversary Squadron based at Naval Air Station Miramar, San Diego, California. A veteran of Desert Storm, he flew 42 combat missions in the F-14 Tomcat while assigned to VF-1 Wolfpack on board the USS Ranger (CV-61).
Just Stay Cool
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 I 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.
Privacy and Off-Duty
Time and again the armed services have been affirmed by federal courts in their authority over the continuum of duty. The military has a definite interest in off-duty conduct. The oaths of commission and enlistment do not refer only to certain times of day. It is as simple as that. While there are on-duty and off-duty periods, law, policy, and standards are not suspended during the off-duty period. The routine, benign disinterest exercised by the armed services in off-duty conduct ceases when conduct is either criminal or detrimental to good order and discipline. The latter can and has included inappropriate heterosexual behavior and fraternization misconduct, among many other activities. Certainly it includes homosexual behavior since sodomy is specifically prohibited under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
That gay advocacy groups are endeavoring to distinguish homosexual practices from other types of aberrant sexual behavior is revealing. It highlights a remarkable contrast with Department of Defense initiatives associated with the family— clearly an off-duty aspect of military life—especially dysfunctionality or domestic violence. Remedies for these problems are sought through Family Service Center support programs and/or sanctions under the military justice system. Policy extends even to the servicemember’s financial support obligation to his or her family, which is explicitly defined in the Navy’s Military Personnel Manual.
Paradoxically, the Tailhook gathering was an off-duty event, yet the Navy as a whole is criticized for its lack of control over its members during that time. Similarly, the death of Navy Seaman Allen R. Schindler—who served on board the USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3)—is being investigated as a murder with “hate crime” overtones because of his alleged homosexuality. He died in an off-duty environment. No one has disputed the jurisdiction of the Navy in either instance.
Our abhorrence of assault and murder, regardless of the circumstance, is consonant with abhorrence of a lifestyle that condones aberrant physical behavior.
Commander John M. Yunker, U.S. Navy (Retired)
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-1081) and USS Wainwright (CG-28) prior to attending the College of Naval Command and Staff at the Naval War College.
A Proposal
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 guar
antee 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 tak-