Gays In The Military A Matter Of

National Insecurity 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