Gays in the Military - Essay Example

Gays in the Military The intent of the United s government, by evidence of laws enacted over the past half-century, is for its citizens to enjoy equal employment opportunities regardless of race, gender, religion ethnicity, age, disability and, since the 1990’s, sexual orientation. Discriminatory employment practices regarding Federal employees are specifically prohibited. Government agencies and departments utilize affirmative action policies during the hiring process and when considering personnel for promotions for the purpose of fully realizing equal employment opportunities for all Federal employees. This policy also lawfully pertains to military personnel. It’s simple, the government does not allow discriminatory practices in hiring therefore gays must be given equal access to all military jobs whether in a combat or non-combat role. However, the issue of gays in the military is far from simple and a topic of heated debate. The main argument against it concerns privacy and troop morale while the argument for is based on defending the uniquely American concept of personal freedom that the troops are fighting to protect, among other objectives. Some suggest that bigotry and ignorance are the root causes of the opposition to gays serving their country, that troop morale is just an excuse used to deny American citizens their civil liberties. Others believe homosexuality to be an immoral lifestyle choice which, if tolerated, would tarnish the proud, well-deserved iconic image the U.S. Armed Forces has spent centuries to earn and diminished the effectiveness of the men and women in uniform. This discussion examines the debate in a historical context specifically the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ viewpoint on personal liberties as well as the opinions of those who inspired the Founders, both pro and con as it pertains to this issue. It also addresses the issue of homosexuality itself, an important consideration because if it is indeed a choice, in the same way drinking and driving is a choice, then it would not be covered under federal employment discrimination laws. The opinions and reasoning’s of those against gays in the military will be reviewed and subsequently debunked while the harmful effects to the security of the U.S. by banning gays are illuminated. The ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy was enacted soon after President Bill Clinton assumed office in 1993. Clinton initially sought to end the military’s ban on admitting gays entirely with no qualifications attached but was forced to fashion the policy as a compromise with Pentagon officials who argued that allowing gays would undermine the readiness and morale of military personnel. The resulting policy was touted as a way to respect gay soldiers’ privacy while preserving the traditions and integrity of the military. According to the policy, the military “may not inquire whether an individual is a homosexual, and homosexuals may not reveal their sexuality. If they do reveal it, they may be discharged” (lkin & Wolff, 2003). For Clinton, the negotiated policy was a disappointment and cost him political capital but he at least was satisfied in that it was a first step in eventually ending the ban on gays. The policy was successful in bringing the issue out of the closet, so to speak, and into the public conscience which has acted to gradually soften at least a portion of the public’s view in favor of gays entering the military unimpeded. Overall, however, the policy has been a miserable failure and an embarrassment on an international scale for the U.S., a reality acknowledged by all current Democratic candidates for president, including Hillary Clinton. This policy has been challenged in court several times as a violation of first amendment free speech rights and of fifth and fourteenth amendment equal protection rights (“Equal Opportunity” 2000). Many nations have, since the enactment of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ changed their policies to allow openly gay soldiers into military ranks with positive results. Countries such as Canada, Britain, Israel and Australia, all close allies of the U.S., no longer discriminate against gays and have found that they integrate well into their respective armed forces and serve honorably to at least the same degree as any other service member. Contrary to this tangible and convincing evidence, the U.S. Congress evidently refuses to believe American citizens and its military are as tolerant or has socially progressed to the point of other countries. According to the Congress’ official position, “the policy is necessary because straight soldiers will not be able to do their jobs properly if gay men and women are allowed to serve openly” and in the usual generic language of the Pentagon, “their unit cohesion and morale will suffer” (lkin& Wolff, 2003). Unlike other, more ‘progressive’ countries, the U.S. military continues to conduct investigations seeking incriminating information of suspected homosexuals by questioning the families, friends and fellow soldiers. Many military personnel have been subjected to fines, disciplinary actions or being dishonorably discharged for simply discussing sexual preferences with the people closest to them. The Service Member Legal Defense Network has calculated that nearly 10,000 military personnel have been discharged due to suspected or confirmed tendencies toward homosexuality since the enactment of the Clinton policy. This has occurred during a time when the military cannot afford to lose massive numbers of skilled soldiers and professional personnel. Contrary to the Pentagon’s assertion that allowing gays would undermine military readiness, its anti-gay stance has actually worked in reverse. “At a time when the military is stretched thin in nation-building projects around the world, the loss of thousands of highly trained professionals has compromised American military readiness. The discharge of 28 language experts last year, including specialists in Arabic and Korean, provides only the most visible evidence of this squandering of military talent” (“Equal Opportunity” 2000). Much of the reasoning for disallowing gays in the military stems from the misinformed notion predominant in the U.S. that homosexuality is a behavioral choice. If it were, the military might have a case. People who willfully and habitually commit immoral actions would certainly be a disruptive influence within disciplined military units. However, homosexuality is not a choice and many homosexuals have served their country honorably in all wars. Sexual orientation materializes for most people in early teenage years without any previous sexual experience. People may choose whether or not to act on their feelings but psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be an option that can be voluntarily chosen. “Originally thought by the American Psychological Association to be a mental disorder, research into its causes, origins, and development have consequently led to its removal by the APA from its list of diagnoses and disorders” (Answers, 2003). The military originally used this outdated ‘evidence’ as reason to ban gays. Many theories abound regarding the origins of a person’s sexual orientation. Most scientists today concur that sexual orientation is probably the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. “In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a persons sexuality” (Answers, 2003). It is important to note that there are almost certainly many rationales for a person’s sexual orientation and the reasons may vary for different people. Arguments claiming homosexuality is not a choice are based on a myriad of examples of people who are gay despite adverse circumstances like harassment and familial estrangement. Homosexuality is a biological behavior. As evidence, being gay is not exclusive to homo-sapiens. It has been found that many mammalian species have been observed exhibiting homosexual conduct. “In some primate species, males who are denied mating opportunities by stronger, more dominant males or males who are sexually immature will often be seen performing sexual acts to each other. Some may even continue this behavior long into adulthood” (Critser, 2004). Long-lasting homosexual relationships subsist beyond humanity. “Homosexual acts occur in countless animal societies, but more male and female homosexual pairs form in numerous primates, mainly chimpanzees and orangutans and these pairs will remain faithful to each other for many years” (Critser, 2004). To what extent personal freedom should be permitted is not the issue in allowing gays to serve in the military. Personal freedoms are an American birthright that is slowly but surely eroding over time. Whether or not the American people have the courage to protect and restore these freedoms is the real issue. The Founding Fathers displayed courage when they broke away from a tyrannical, oppressive King of England who ruled over the most powerful military at that time to establish a country where personal autonomy was considered the most precious commodity in a society. The seeds of the Founders’ concept of law and freedom emanated from Britain. Allowing homosexuals to join the military, the first step being the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, represents a gradual shift of legal philosophy towards John Stuart Mills’ “Harm Principle” as outlined in his influential1859 work, “On Liberty.” Mills argued that an adult should be allowed to do what they want to do provided that their action does not cause harm to someone else. The 1957 Wolfenden Committee report, in line with this thinking, recommended that “there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality that is ‘not the law’s business’” in its Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (Kipnis, 1977, p. 44). Lord Patrick Devlin, then a British judge, disputed the report published while he sat the bench arguing for the use of law to preserve morality and thus society itself. Devlin recommended punishment for violating society’s morals which were ambiguously defined as being those behaviors that would disgust a ‘right-minded person.’ Professor and philosopher H.L.A. Hart opposed Devlin’s viewpoint explaining that immorality does not jeopardize society and that Devlin’s stance implies that the morality of a society can’t change. The understanding of these viewpoints is paramount to society as a whole as controversial topics such as homosexuality, euthanasia, drugs and prostitution continue to be introduced to revision of law. The center of Hart’s argument is the “Harm Principle” extrapolated from John Mill’s composition 100 years earlier. “..That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill, 1885). Devlin, surprisingly, agreed with this premise. The distinction of how a changing morality affects a society and what degree of harm it inflicts upon it versus the rights of individuals to live as they please without fear of repression is a long-standing debate in all parts of the world over a long period of time. Hart conceded that people will do what they want to do whether it is lawful or not. To imprison or otherwise legally restrict a citizen for an act that affects no one but the consenting individual, Hart said, is an immoral act in itself. Hart went on to say that in order for a legal system to function effectively, the rules must be understood by all those individuals to whom they apply. If the rules are not sufficiently clear, then there may be uncertainty about the obligations which have been imposed on individuals (Hart, 1994). Moral and legal rules may apply to similar aspects of conduct, such as the obligation to be honest and truthful or the obligation to respect the rights of other individuals. However, moral rules cannot always be changed in the same way that legal rules can be changed (Hart, 1994). The division of the two philosophies is a matter of where a person draws the line between civil liberties and societal control. A violent crime, no matter how heinous, does not destroy the fabric of society. Murders take place every day in every nation, yet civilized people carry on in a civilized manner before, during and after the horrible incidents. If that is true, neither does a crime against another’s moral stance destroy the moral fabric of a society. We, as a society, are continuously growing toward tolerance in both our legislation and our minds. Evidence of this fact exists in the laws enacted since the historic debate between Devlin and Hart on these issues. Lawmakers have altered rules regarding abortion, divorce, homosexuality and controlled substances as well as many others since this high-profile dialogue was introduced. It is this inability to specifically define these subjective moral values that emerges as the major flaw in Devlin’s argument. Although the ‘no harm, no foul’ concept is equally subjective in its flippant succinctness, it is at the same time easily understood to relate to serious individual harm caused by another’s actions. If no serious harm has been inflicted, it becomes difficult to prove a crime has taken place. Because of the ease in which the concept is both understood and applied, it is natural for society to evolve toward the ‘Harm Principle’ as opposed to the ideals espoused by Devlin. Those who give little credence to the ‘no harm’ principle and would ban gays from society period argue that the U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form of government in which elected officials are intended to set social policy for the nation. Legislators do this by representing their constituents’ moral views when drafting laws. Because the Constitution bars the intertwining of state and religion, the only method of ensuring that moral and ethical codes are enforced throughout society is through acts of legislation. In fact, lawmakers draft laws that address moral issues constantly and not just in high profile matters such as abortion, pornography and gay rights. When courts determine morality issues, they counteract legislation meant to protect the moral fabric of society and break down the constitutionally guaranteed separation of powers within the government. “When judges erode the power of the people’s representatives to set society’s moral compass, they likewise undercut the authority of parents, schools, and other community groups to set the standards they would like to see their children and fellow citizens live by. Indeed, it is a frontal assault on community values writ large” (Raul, 2003). Those who champion civil liberties believe that as citizens of the United States, all people are guaranteed the inalienable right to pursue happiness. It does not exclude on the basis of sexual preference. The government was originally formed as an entity meant to champion the rights of the individual whether they are on the majority or minority side of public opinion. Laws that were enacted in the South disallowed the marriage between black and white people but were struck down by the Supreme Court and in 1964 the Civil Rights Act followed the tenets of the Constitution by prohibiting discrimination. It was during the Second World War that the military formally adopted its ban on gays. The military also was officially segregated at that time. The military hierarchy was convinced that the integration of gays and blacks would damage the morale of the troops. Of course though black platoons and regiments existed, there was no ‘gay brigade.’ At that time, the prevalent opinion was that being black was not by choice but being gay was therefore blacks could join but certainly not fight with white soldiers. One wonders if gays would have been admitted but segregated from blacks and whites if it were widely recognized that being gay was no more or less a choice than being black. The subject of segregation became a much discussed topic during World War II. The nation that hailed itself as the symbol of freedom sent its young men to fight and die in a war to make the world safe for democracy. An embarrassing aspect of this high idealistic struggle was that U.S. blacks were subjugated within the very armed forces that were supposed to stand for freedom of all nations. The black soldiers, of course, very much resented this lower class distinction as they bled the same color red as the white soldiers. The heroic actions by many black soldiers during the war began a change of direction in the attitude of whites throughout the country regarding race relations. “The NAACP’s strategy for attacking segregation through the Legal Defense Fund was revitalized and extended after World War II. Eventually it led to the Supreme Court decision in the Brown v. Education case in 1954” (Hampton, 1980). The gay issue is no less an embarrassment for essentially the same reasons. The War in Iraq has produced little in the way of encouraging news but one of the positive effects has been an increase in the general awareness regarding the issue of gays in the military. It has helped to illuminate the fact that the U.S. anti-gay policy, including the far-outdated ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ initiative, is absurd both to military personnel and the general public. Because the military is stretched so thin as to compromise national security and the current efforts in Iraq, the military has relaxed its recruitment policies to include convicted felons, those with acute medical ailments and older persons. However, gay persons are still barred from serving their country. “As a soldier first, it affects my morale to know that a known gang member can serve alongside other service members. As a woman, it affects my morale that a convicted rapist can serve alongside female service members. As a parent it affects my morale that a convicted child molester can serve alongside military families” said former U.S. Army Sgt. Sonya Contreras. “As Americans, it should affect all of our morale to know that Congress is forcing the U.S. military to choose convicted felons over competent, qualified and capable service members” (cited in Kiritsy, 2007). The intolerance of gays by the U.S. Congress and the Pentagon, in tangible terms in which all can relate, cost the U.S. military half a billion dollars during the decade of the 1980’s. This figure includes the money spent on training soldiers who later were forcibly discharged because they were either suspected or confirmed of being gay but does not take into account the money spent on investigating or prosecuting these soldiers (Towell, 1993). In just this ten-year period, thousands of soldiers faced humiliation and disgrace, the military lost indispensable personnel and millions of dollars were wasted yet these attempts to purge gays from military service did not eradicate even a small percentage of gays in the armed forces. Fortunately for the U.S., it was involved in large-scale military action during the 1980’s. All it lost was some well-trained, patriotic individuals, the respect of allies and a great amount of money that could have been better spent. The first soldier wounded in Iraq, retired Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who had his leg amputated after stepping on a landmine on the initial day of conflict has consistently stated that gays should be able to serve, if for not for reasonable motives, then in the country’s security interests. Alva, who is openly gay said, “Some of us are linguists, some us were explosive ordnance officers, some of us were recruiters who sought out and put skilled men and women in the military and then were discharged because of who they were. So a lot of us had valuable jobs and were very important to the armed forces. But because of that discriminatory policy, you’re eliminating those factors of what is detrimental to our national security” (Kiritsy, 2007). When the military first officially banned gays from serving, homosexuality was thought to be a medical condition, a form of mental illness. However, in the 1970’s both the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association officially affirmed their belief that homosexuality is not a mental illness (Bayer, 1981). The military has even publicly acknowledged that it doesn’t consider homosexuality as a mental abnormality. This puts the military in the unenviable position of justifying an intolerant policy which has no merit. The only reasoning used to deny gays access was discredited over a generation ago. Bigotry is seen by many as the reason given that no other credible justification has been forthcoming. However, the military would reject this observation, at least officially. The discussions military leaders have in private regarding gays can only be speculative. The military insists that it is in its best interest to ban gays from service even if society as a whole accepts them because the armed forces is dissimilar in many ways from society at-large, as any service-person will attest, requiring extraordinary measures and rules of conduct so as to operate effectively. If openly gay soldiers are allowed, their presence will undermine the morale of the troops thus reducing their fighting effectiveness and put more lives at risk than is absolutely necessary. Soldiers are quartered in close proximity and enjoy little privacy while sleeping, eating or even using the bathroom. In much the same way that woman would be uncomfortable undressing or visiting the latrine in the presence of men and would consider it an egregious invasion of their privacy, males would be uncomfortable in private moments within the presence of gays. “The experience of a privacy invasion, the sense that others present might find one’s body sexually exciting, can be expected to diminish morale and thus reduce the effectiveness of combat units. Even having to interact socially with homosexuals will diminish morale” (Shawver, 1995 p. 86). The military’s principal responsibility is the deadly serious business of fighting wars therefore allowing a policy that would diminish the effectiveness of troops in combat situations is intolerable. The military’s argument essentially encompasses the issues of privacy and morale. Those who are or have been in the armed forces can confirm the military is hardly concerned with the privacy of soldiers despite knowing gay persons are woven within the ranks. The driving force behind the banning of gays appears to be moral indignation alone which, in and of itself seems an unlikely reason for the military to ban an individual or group. Studies have demonstrated, as an example, the Navy relieved more gays of duty, by percentage, than any other branch of the armed services in the late 1980’s through early 1990’s. The cover-up attempt following the well-known Tailhook incident (1991) indicates the Navy’s enthusiasm to separate itself from those deemed to commit immoral acts during this time-period was more than a bit hypocritical (Shawver, 1995 p. 87-88). For the entire history of the nation soldiers have bravely given their lives, limbs and minds to protect the civil rights of all Americans regardless of their values, beliefs, ethnicity or even sexual orientation. However, the very military that protects the freedoms of everyone, homosexuals included, discriminates against them which is contradictory to the principles the country was founded upon and the Constitution which all military personnel swears an oath to protect. The current hypocritical policy is an international embarrassment for a country that, because of its involvement in Iraq, does not need additional reasons for the rest of the world to disrespect its actions. Other countries have long since overcome the fears and propaganda surrounding the gays in the military issue and no longer ban someone from military service based on the trivial excuse of sexual preference. During the late 1980’s, Canada was engaged in an impassioned debate regarding gays in the military much the same as the one occurring today in the U.S. An interesting phenomenon occurred after the ban was lifted, nothing, no noticeable morale problems, walk-outs, demonstrations or violence against gays. The military proceeded as it had without recognizable negative consequences. The same outcome was experienced by the militaries of other countries that ended discriminatory practices. How can the U.S. credibly espouse its well-intended determination to spread its brand of democracy and freedom to other countries while denying those freedoms to its own citizens? This policy undermines the security of the nation, is very costly and violates the ideals of civil and human rights that so many American soldiers have sacrificed everything to protect. Works Cited “Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.” April 11, 2003. American Psychological Association. November 23, 2007 Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. New York: Basic Books, Inc., (1981). Belkin, Tobias Aaron & Barrington Wolff “Gays in the Military. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ 10 years and 10,000 discharges later” San Francisco Chronicle (November 30, 2003). November 23, 2007 Critser, Bart. “Homosexuality is Natural.” The Daily Free Press. (April 7, 2004). November 23, 2007 “Equal Opportunity in the Military.” Constitutional Rights Foundation (2000). November 23, 2007 Hampton, Henry; Fayer, Steve; & Flynn, Sarah (Eds.) Voices of Freedom: An Oral History of the Civil Rights Movement From the 1950s Through the 1980s. New York: Bantam Books, (1980). pp. 25, 26. Hart, H.L.A. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press, (1994). p. 110. Kipnis, Kenneth. Philosophical Issues in Law. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. (1977). p. 44. Kiritsy, Laura. “Discharged soldier: ’Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is undermining U.S. security” Bay Windows (August 23, 2007) November 23, 2007 Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. New York: John B. Alden, (1885). p. 9. Raul, Alan Charles. “How Legalizing Gay Marriage Undermines Society’s Morals.” The Christian Science Monitor. (December 9, 2003). November 23, 2007 Shawver, Lois. “And the Flag Was Still There: Straight People, Gay People, and Sexuality in the U.S. Military” New York NY: Harrington Park Press, (February 1995) Towell, P. Military dismissals. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (February 6, 1993) 51(6), 274. Read More