The amazing ability to entirely overlook decades of positive integration experiences in other armed forces continues to typify the US military establishment’s policies against openly integrating homosexual service members. The issue rarely comes into the public limelight, but at the moment it is thanks to the announcement of a new bill to repeal laws against openly gay personnel and also because of a Marine General’s remarks.
“I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way.”
Pace was explaining why he supported the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays serving in the military, signed into law in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton.
Under the policy, commanders may not ask the sexual orientation of service members, but gays and lesbians can serve only if they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts.
Nearly 10, 000 service members (some reports say over 11,000) have been discharged under the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy, many of them long-serving, dedicated and often decorated personnel. In a bizarre maze of convoluted priorites, more than 50 of the discharged service members were highly-qualified Arabic translators at a time when there is a severe shortage of translator personnel (two dozen of these were discharged since the war began in Iraq). This at a time when the military personnel shortage is so severe that medically unfit personnel are being shipped to a further tour of duty in Iraq.
Nathaniel Frank of U.C. Santa Barbara conducted a study of gays removed from the military. Frank discovered that over 800 of the discharged gays were “mission critical specialists” and about 300 were linguists. Of which, 55 were rare Arabic linguists. Franks concludes that the policy towards gays is causing a “brain drain” in the military.
There have been many instances of homosexual personnel complying with DADT in being discreet about their sexual orientation, yet being outed by fellow unit members. In one notorious case, a soldier was discharged after being reported for joining an off-base amateur theatrical group.
From the Reuter’s story on Pace:
The Human Rights Campaign, a leading U.S. gay rights organization, had condemned Pace’s earlier remarks as bigoted.
“General Pace’s comments were irresponsible, offensive and a slap in the face to the gay men and women who are currently serving their country with honor and bravery,” said Joe Solmonese, the group’s president.
To be fair and balanced here, General Pace is equally disapproving of the immorality of adultery, which is also a prosecutable offence under the UCMJ (if it’s with the spouse of a fellow service member).
The continuing injustice of DADT is an issue that shouldn’t be swept under the carpet. Will the Democratic Party’s repeal bill get through Congress? Will President Bush veto it if it does? Will any of the Democrat presidential contenders have the ticker to step up to the plate and take a strong stand on this one?
Pam Spaulding at Pam’s House Blend has more on General Pace and much, much more on DADT.
“Immoral in any way”?
Geez, that opens a can of worms.
I can’t understand this phobia about Gays in the Military.
We get it here too. Every so often some old fart from the RSL will croak out something to the effect that he wouldn’t want to be stuck in a foxfole with a queer.
I would have thought that if your’e hunkered down in a hole in the ground taking-fire, the last thing on your mind would be whether the guy next to you is gonna make a move.
You’d be more concerned whether he keeps firing the SAW.
Besides, history seems to suggest that Gays make pretty good soldiers: Alexander, Leonidas, Julius Caesar et al.
…must…avoid….temptation….to ……make…..cunning…..double…entendre………..
It’s movement when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is forced back to the microphones within 24 hours to concede that airing his somewhat quaint personal views on sexual “immorality” was profoundly dumb. Pace is paid to lead the US Armed Forces, not to be some curtain-twitching, suburban matron worrying about what the neighbours are getting up to.
The fact that a venerable Republican like Senator John Warner saw fit to slap him around with “I strongly disagree with the chairman’s views that homosexuality is immoral” is also interesting.
I obviously disagree with him too. I think that Pace is at liberty to find homosexuality personally “immoral.” However, he’s not at liberty to start using his personal beliefs to substantiate policy positions; particularly when his views and the policy position in question, don’t coincide.
DADT is an unsatisfactory, non-solution but it’s ostensibly based on the assumption that the homosexual condition is value-neutral.
What will eventually sink DADT – apart from the fact that it’s inherently unsustainable as a policy position – is the incontrovertible fact that dozens of the United States’ allies have abandoned the ban on homosexuals serving, over the last two decades, with absolutely no deleterious effects. The insularity of American society and the power of the military lobby coupled with the influence of moral conservatism during the Bush administration has meant that resolution has been delayed. But, ultimately, it won’t be denied.
They may be pillow-biters, but they’re our pillow biters.
“The fact that a venerable Republican like Senator John Warner saw fit to slap him around”
Warner was Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan Administration, so is well-qualified to comment.
(Plus, he was once married to Elizabeth Taylor.)
If the argument is that individual homosexuals have made contributions to the military efforts of the US armed forces then we have no arguments. Homosexuals can be every bit as violent and vicious in times of battle as any heterosexual. Such homosexuals have probably existed within the ranks of Hitler’s Third Reich or Ghengis Khan’s maruaders. Homosexuals report a disproportionate amount of domestic violence and are represented well amongst serial killers, rapists and molesters. The ability to be called to VIOLENCE in order to be a solid individual soldier is not the issue.
The issue is whether open homosexuality in the military helps lead to victory on the battlefield? The best the homosexual advocates can claim is that is shows no evidence of hurting the military effort or that it is one’s “right” to serve and the military CAN NOT discriminate.
I think the DADT policy separates those that want to be known for their military service and those that want to be known for their homosexuality.
So what is the argument for gay in the military? Homosexuals help lead troops to victory? It is their “right?” They are every bit as capable of killing and being soldiers?
(Plus, he was once married to Elizabeth Taylor.)
An adulteress! She’s got zero chance of joining the Marines.
Well, which was the homosexual act, was it The Importance of Being Ernest or Hedwig and the Angry Inch? Frrrooom-tish. Actually, I’m even ashamed of myself for that pun. Wherefore art thou Homer?
Well said, Geoff. Ditto women in combat roles, if you can call the Americans’ preferred form of push-button remote obliteration-by-1,000lb-JDAM “combat”. In my day there’d be dark mutterings amongst the men ‘f there were to be women aboard a carrack setting out to sea, but honestly, I’d much prefer the civilisation of any of today’s modern Navies. Except the South Korean Navy—kimchi-eating has no place in any badly-ventilated confined area. Phew, unbatten those hatches!
I even hear that these days demeaning sexual acts as part of hazing rituals for recruits are optional and frowned upon! What’s become of the world? Are the Russian conscripts the only true heirs left of the Spartans?
Further to the discussion of military performance:
…sapping our precious bodily fluids.
A bit of context for this is that the military is in some ways a microcosm of conservative US society and in some ways a society all of its own with a deliberately backwardlooking “code” and a collectivist ethos that couldn’t be a greater contrast to its parent society.
Interestingly, the troops appear to be rather more open-minded about this issue than some of their commanders.
And soredaddy, do you have a coherent point – beyond the one at the top of your head?
NB: Gratutiously and wilfully incorrect syllogisms do not count as a coherent point.
However the fact you think “violent and vicious” are key battlefield qualities makes me glad that more of your kind don’t volunteer to serve their country.
I’d much rather see our armed forces crewed up by cool-headed, resourceful, adaptable and organised people (with a good eye for camouflage)anyday.
The Washington Post’s editorial today is also a lot more open-minded than the commanders.
I have some experience in the military. I tend to favour allowing gays in the military on conservative modernist grounds. Its in the national interest of a post-Enightenment civil state to get diverse people integrated on good terms.
The military and state schools are obviously the core civic integration apparatus for the nation. If formerly perceived social deviants express a desire to be accepted as normal citizens then I think this move should be acknowledged and rewarded by state officials.
I dont think homosexuals need be a disciplinary problem in the armed forces, provided they keep their sexual profile low ie no fraternization. But one needs to keep in mind that male and female homosexuals have almost the opposite psychological valency.
This is especially important to remember for male gays. They have to keep the personal distinct from the professional. Any suggestion of feminine (“queer”) tendencies would lead to intra-unit violence.
Lesbians have always been in the military. They appear to make better than average soldiers owning to the strength of their masculine (“butch”) tendencies.
Wtf?
This social deviant doesn’t particularly want valorisation from “state officials”. But while we’re on the topic, how do you square this with your opposition to same sex marriage?
I’ve never heard it called that before. Oooh, err.
Seriously, now, Jack, you’re not normalising bit of khaki queer-bashing are you? Are you ordering a code-red?
The armed forces already have fairly strict rules against quite a few “fraternisation” liaisons i.e. between Officers and Other Ranks as an absolute, and officer/officer and OR/OR where one is in the direct chain of command above the other.
Why should homosexual service members have to observe any stricter fraternisation code thatn that for other service members?
tigtog on 14 March 2007 at 6:19 pm
Commonsense. Formal sexuality-neutral codes are acceptable as is. But informally, through mess-lore, homosexuals need to be aware of the disciplinary problem that they can cause if they become flagrant in their sexual preferences. It would be reassuring if homosexual activists explicitly recognised this problem.
Most of homosexuals are smart enough to figure this out by themselves without legalistic grandstanding. They just want to fit in and get on with job.
Why must everything be written down in triplicate before Left wing rationalists believe its real? The British manage just fine without a written constitution.
A commenter who was in the US Army wrote at Lawyers, Guns And Money:
Oh please – the old “homphobes have to be protected from the consequences of their prejudice” argument is SOOOOOO twentieth century.
If a black hat, an Orthodox Jew, was in a unit, and then subjected to harassment, possibly violence, if his comrades complained to their commanding officers – Oh Sir he’s Jewish! (or black, or hispanic, or a woman – you get the picture) would it be good miltiary procedure to remove him from the unit? To indulge the prejudice of the troops? Of course cohesiveness in the unit is all but its not achieved by allowing the lowest common denominator to set the standard. Prejudice is prejudice – who ever it is directed at & it should be treated the same.
And secondly- what is it with straight guys? Why do you imagine you are so god dam irrestible to every queer on the planet, that you’re not safe unless you’re able to impose state ordained boundaries? Besides, any queer is going to be very very careful about ‘fraternising’ in a situation with undoubt pissed off personnel armed to the teeth. You’ve taught us to be very very good at self-preservation.
And finally – i just wish one of you ‘gay-back-in-the-box’ exponents would expend as much energy on issues of sexual harassement of women serving in the military -strangely it seems perpetuated by those poor threatened little straight troops.