Untitled Essay, Research Paper

Very often political institutions reflect the will of society and set the

precedent for norms that will be expected of its members. The United States

Military is still enforcing archaic policies which threaten to harm the

principles our nation was founded upon. The principles of freedom and equality

are those that every American holds closest to their heart, that is unless

you are in the military and are gay. The issue of gays in the military has

developed into a case of whether our country should discriminate against

a group merely because of involuntary sexual orientation. Two persistent

principles are evident within this topic: that homosexuals are ever present

throughout all branches of the military and a persistent hostility against

this group is in American society and the military. In order to effectively

examine this topic the following concepts will be discussed: an analysis

of the current Department Of Defense policy concerning gays, solutions to

reduce homophobia in the military, a policy model concerning homosexuals

in the military ( Lepicer 1-14 ).

Prior to the arrival of the Clinton Administration with its agenda to radically

revise military policy regarding the acceptance and treatment of homosexuals,

Department of Defense policy was well established and clear. Legal questions

began to be raised in civilian courts challenging the military exclusion

and discharge policies in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The services were

forced to explain and clearly justify specific limits and procedures used

in relation to service members claiming to be homosexual or convicted of

such behavior. During the Carter Administration a clear policy was signed

into law. It reads:

Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the

military environment of

persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate

a propensity to engage in such conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment

of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the

ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and

morale: to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to ensure

the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment

and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and

work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain

members of the Military Services: to maintain the public acceptability of

military service; and to prevent breaches of security ( Lepicer ).

Everyone agrees that gays were already in the military, but gays want to

serve their country out of the closet. This concept pitted the gay community

against the traditionalists who want to keep them out. The result is a

compromising “Don’t ask / Don’t Tell” policy which prevents recruiters

from inquiring about an enlistees sexual preference. The purpose of the military

is to kill people and complete the mission at hand. Therefore anything that

hinders the military from fulfilling this role is a potential threat to national

security and must be looked at in an objective manner. The military’s

attitude towards homosexuals dates back to the Revolutionary War when General

George Washington approved the discharge and court martial of an officer

for attempted sodomy. Every year more than 800 service members are separated

from the military based on sexual orientation. The Department Of Defense

current policy is both discriminatory and ineffective. Homosexuals should

have the right to serve their country as long as their job performance is

not affected by their private life. Currently the military does not actively

seek out and prosecute heterosexual service members who engage in sodomy

but they will go to great lenghts to investigate mere claims of homosexual

conduct. Often history repeats itself and the integration of African Americans

into the military was one which met great opposition but is now an accepted

principle. We as a country can see the foolishness and downright prejudice

that was involved in the opposition of integration of minorities into our

military, one which in 20 years we may equate with the current arguments

involving gays in the military ( Wornsop 195-212 , Schlueter 393-432).

In his article , “Not Asking or Telling: No remedy,” in the March 25, 1995,

edition of the National Journal, David Morrison suggests that President

Clinton’s policy of “Don’t ask , Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue”

has done little to end the controversy. The new policy is nothing more than

a reworded version of the old policy. The new policy forbids inquiries based

on “rumor, suspicion, or capricious claims regarding a member’s sexual

orientation.” But in reality this has not stopped some commanders. The Service

Members Legal Defense Network cites these cases: a service member investigated

after an anonymous phone call, and another investigated because he had taken

notes for a class on homosexuality. These cases show clearly how military

leaders blatantly violate both current policy and individual rights (Morrison

748-749).

Defense Department officials say that the policy appears to be working because

the number of discharges is down. There appears to be a distinct conflict

between the cases that are reported and the Pentagons statements that center

around the premise that there have been no violations of the policy. In her

book , Homosexuals And The Right To Serve, Major Melissa Wells-Petry discusses

the military’s objections to lifting the ban. One of the main issues

is that of gender segregation. The author explains that gender segregation

is based on two principles: ” People have a preference for people of the

opposite sex and they should be allowed to choose to whom they expose an

aspect of their sexuality.” Lifting the ban would expose the charade that

their are no homosexuals in the military. The argument is often brought up

that says the presence of homosexuals detracts from the military mission

is present in both written policy and actual belief. In reality anyone engaging

in any sexual activity in the military environment threatens the mission

of the military. The distinction of homosexual activity has no validity or

bearing on the truth of the matter. It is impossible to see how homosexuals

can detract from the maintenance of good order when nearly 75% of those already

in the military are never discovered. If a person causes a problem with order,

morale or discipline they should be separated from service regardless of

sexual orientation ( Wells, Davis 54-107).

The idea that homosexuals pose a security risk is clearly unfounded since

in a House Of Representatives Committee on National Security report proves

gays are less of a risk. Of the 117 reported espionage cases between 1945

and 1991 only 6 involved homosexuals. The key to ending discrimination based

on sexual orientation in the military is to bring an end to homophobia or

antigay bias. In the book After The Ball : How America Will Conquer It’s

Fear & Hatred Of Gays In The 90’s, the authors explore the ways

to help America accept homosexuals. The techniques proposed are desensitization,

jamming, and conversion. Desensitization aims at attempting to lower the

level of anti-gay rhetoric. If we can effectively integrate homosexuals in

the military then the novelty of homosexuals will diminsh and so will the

associated prejudice. Jamming is an aggressive and active approach which

uses a psychological process that uses two competing theories that are

associated. One example of jamming the military could use is sensitivity

training which will both educate the ignorant individual and also get the

individual to feel shame for having such an unsupported prejudice for an

oppressed group. The concept of of conversion is actually changing ones views

and beliefs. This idea is most effective when people are exposed to homosexuals

in their everyday lives. If the military continues to create conditions which

discourage an individual from openly declaring their homosexuality then prejudice

will continue and the us vs. them mentality will flourish. If someone discovers

a friend is homosexual but is still very much like themselves then the concept

of homosexuality becomes irrelevant. When people have prejudice against a

certain group they rationalize by saying how different they are from them.

It is evident that the issues involved with lifting the ban on African Americans

in the military has some very distinct similarities with the issue of

homosexuals. Tim Mcfeeley , executive director of the Human Rights Campaign

Fund states, “Homosexuals are being persecuted in the military for being

different from the mainstream, just as blacks were maltreated in the 1940’s

and 50’s” ( Duke A1, House Of Representatives 95-21).

From the Revolutionary War to present day homosexuals have served in the

military with distinction and pride. Yet although many have died in defense

of the principles upon which our nation was founded they are being denied

the fundamental rights of liberty and equality. Thousands of members of our

military have been denied their right to serve their country and a career

in the military essentially because they are gay. In the process of instilling

archaic principles upon the military our nation has compromised its combat

effectiveness and undermined institutional integrity. In his speech announcing

the ” Don’t ask Don’t tell,” policy President Clinton makes a very

compelling argument against discrimination. Because the military ” is an

institution that embodies the best in America and must reflect the society

in which it operates, it is also right for the military to make changes when

the time for change is at hand. I strongly believe that the military , like

our society, needs the talents of every person who wants to make a

contribution…” Certainly the time for change is upon us. The military

must stop discriminating based upon sexual orientation. If job performance

is affected by any factor then the service member must be allowed to correct

the deficiencies or be separated. But if the basis for investigation is mere

suspicion or beliefs that such behavior may affect the organization this

is not a valid principle. The military must not allow illogical prejudices

to drive personnel policies. The growing number of military organizations

and para- military organizations that accept openly gay individuals proves

the Pentagons fears are unfounded. The Pentagon has stated that openly gay

service members threaten morale and fighting effectiveness. A General Accounting

Office review found that out of seventeen foreign military forces only four

explicitly ban homosexuals from service. This shows America is in need of

a policy change and it must be fair and succinct ( House Of Representatives

).

Many veterans and soldiers feel that even if the ban were lifted it would

not improve conditions or increase acceptance levels of gays in the military.

But lifting the ban would relieve the pressure on gay members which would

translate into an increased proficiency of job performance. Lifting the ban

would also allow law enforcement and investigory agencies to re-direct their

resources toward criminal violations rather than enforcing morals upon the

minority. Research indicates that in foreign countries that allow homosexuals

to serve the number of openly gay individuals is quite small. The majority

of the members were discrete and there were few problems caused by the presence

of homosexual members. Very often the banning of a specific group causes

members of society to hold irrational beliefs and then engage in violent

activity against those classes of people they believe are a threat to the

groups integrity. Heterosexuals are often more accepting of those with alternate

lifestyles when this group is not banned by the predominant authority. Emphasis

must be placed on behavior, conduct and work performance. Military leadership

must reassure both the minority and the majority by supporting everyone’s

right to choose ( Lolorado C1 ).

Clearly the evidence supports the lifting of the gay ban in full. The

military’s discrimination of individual based on sexual orientation

is not only morally wrong but collides with the principles our country was

founded upon, equality and freedom. Our nation has learned important things

from the integration of African Americans into our military. The success

of both our nation and military depends upon the utilization of all of the

resources that are available. America cannot compete effectively if it relies

upon outdated prejudices which are completely without merit. Sexual orientation

is a personal private issue and not one which compromises national security.

318