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.
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
Proceedings / April 1993