The Gayly Oklahoman (Oklahoma City, Okla.), Vol. 11, No. 5, Ed. 1 Monday, March 1, 1993 Page: 4 of 24
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Oklahoma Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Gateway to Oklahoma History by the Oklahoma Historical Society.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
COUNTERING MILITARY ARGUMENTS
AGAINST GAY AND LESRIAN SERVICE MEMBERS
ISSUES AND ANSWERS
Issue: The issue of ending the ban
should be studied before the President
rescinds the anti-gay policy.
No military personnel issue has been
so studied, discussed, and debated as the
anti-gay/lesbian ban. The government’s
own studies on the issue have shown that the
policy is unjustified and expensive to imple-
ment. Some of the results of those studies
include the following:
• The Crittenden report (formally the
Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare
and Submit Recommendations to the Secre-
tary of the Navy for the Revision of Policies.
Procedures and Directives Dealing With
Homosexuals). March 1957: “The concept
that homosexuals pose a security risk is
unsupported by any factual data. . . [t]he
number of cases of blackmail as a result of
past investigations of homosexuals is negli-
gible. No factual data exist to support the
contention that homosexuals are a greater
risk than heterosexuals.”
• Nonconforming Sexual Orientation
and Military Suitability. Defense Personnel
Security Research and Education Center
(PERSEREC), December 1988: “... [TJhe
values that any society places on social acts
are subject to change. . . the lessons of
history tell us that the legitimacy of our
behaviors, customs, and laws is not perma-
nently resistant to change. Custom and law
change with the times, sometimes with
amazing rapidity. The military cannot in-
definitely isolate itself from the changes
occurring in the wider society, of which it is
an integral pail.”
■ Pre-service Adjustment of Homo-
sexual and Heterosexual Military Acces-
sion: Implications for Security Clearance
Suitability. PERSEREC, January, 1989: “.
. . |T]he preponderance of the evidence
presented in this study indicates that homo-
sexuals show pre-service suitability-related
adjustment that is as good or better than the
average heterosexual.”
• DOD’s Policy on Homosexuality,
U.S. Government Accounting Office, June
1992: “DOD annually expelled an average
of about 1,500 men and women between
1980 and 1990 under the separation cat-
egory of ‘homosexuality.’ The cost of re-
placing those service members is $28,226
for each enlisted troop and $120,772 for
each officer. The total cost to US. taxpay-
ers of l/nplerrtenting the anti-gay policy be
tween 1980 and 1990 was therefore
$493,195,968 [emphasis added]. The re-
port also stated: “Major psychiatric and
psychological organizations in the United
States disagree with DOD’s policy and be-
lieve it to be factually unsupported, unfair
and counterproductive. In addition, two
DOD/service-commissioned study efforts
have refuted DOD’s position on the poten-
tial security risk associated with homosexual
orientation as well as disclosed information
that raised questions about the basic policy.
Further, the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have
recently acknowledged that homosexual ori-
entation is no longer a major security con-
cern.”
Issue: Integration based on sexual
orientation is not similar to integration
based on race because race is a non-
behavioral characteristic while sexual
orientation indicates a behavior choice.
Whether or not sexual orientation is a
biological or behavioral characteristic is a
constant issue of scientific study, with sev-
eral recent studies indicating that there may
be a biological link. Regardless of the cause
of sexual orientation, many of the argu-
ments used in 1948 during the debate about
integration by race were actually based on
ihe idea* that African-Americans engaged
in different behaviors than white Ameri-
cans and those behaviors would be disrup-
tive to the effectiveness and morale of the
military. The stereotypes invoked in 1948
were proven false and integration based on
race was implemented. The stereotypes
invoked this year are similarly false. The
issue was never whether African-Ameri-
cans could serve — the issue was racism.
The issue now is not whether gay men and
lesbians can serve, the issue is homophobia.
Issue: Won’t military readiness be
hurt by allowing gays in the military?
Gay men and lesbians are in the mili-
tary — tens of thousands of them. They
serve at all levels of the armed forces, in-
cluding in the Pentagon. No one argues that
they are not. They have even served bravely
in Operation Desert Storm and are serving
in Somalia. An executive order would in-
sure that gay men and lesbians could serve
their country openly and be treated with
dignity and respect.
Issue: Given the special environ-
ment of the military, the presence of
openly gay and lesbian service members
invades the privacy rights of heterosexu-
als in the foxholes, showers and sleeping
quarters.
These comments arc based on the ste-
reotype that gay people cannot control their
sexuality. Gay and lesbian service mem-
bers arc in all those places today, and are
behaving themselves appropriately. The
penalties for inappropriate sexual behavior,
whether by gays or heterosexuals, should be
the same and equally applied. Repealing
the ban does not alter these regulations. The
most similar civilian situation is that of fire
and police departments which must often
sleep, live and work in close quarters. The
GAO study from June 1992 indicates that
those agencies that have ended previous
employment bans of gay officers “have not
experienced any degradation of mission
associated with the?* policies. Most depart-
ment officials did not identify major prob-
lems related to retaining homosexuals in a
work force.”
Issue: What about straight service
members who fear sexual harassment
and sexual overtures by openly gay and
lesbian troops?
Sexual harassment is already prohib-
ited and regulated by military codes of con-
duct. In recent years, we have seen that
heterosexual service men have sexually
harassed women and violated many codes
of conduct. The Tailhook incident shows
that military leaders have often been slow to
discipline troops who violate these codes.
Instead of fearing the unsupported potential
of sexual harassment and misbehavior from
openly gay and lesbian troops, military lead-
ers should enforce the current policies fairly,
regardless of the sexual orientation of the
perpetrators or the victims.
Issue: Won’t the presence of gay
service members increase AIDS in the
military? And what about blood transfu-
sions in combat?
AIDS is permeating all sectors of
American society, and HIV does not dis-
criminate. The spread of HIV among re-
miiting-age American young men and
women is growing rapidly, as a result of
failure to educate about the risks and self-
protection measures involved with HIV.
The Department of Defense already has a
strict HIV testing and screening policy and
bars new recruits with HIV. The DOD also
annually tests all personnel for HIV and
tests those in rapidly deployed forces more
frequently. The number of service mem-
bers with HIV has remained fairly level at
500 from year to year.
Regarding blood transfusions, the reli-
ance on battlefield transfusions has been
historically very low. Instead, the military
relies on blood that has previously been
stored. Service members with HIV arc not
placed in deployable units.
Issue: Clinton should consult more
closely with military leaders before mov-
ing forward on repealing the ban.
When President Truman issued his ex-
ecutive order banning racial discrimination
in the armed forces in 1948, he received
virtually unanimous advice from his senior
military officers that this would be disrup-
tive. President Clinton is knowledgeable
about the Department of Defense’s own
studies on the issues that show no justifica-
tion for the ban. President Clinton is acting
as a leader to end discrimination. In 1948,
the generals were wrong and strong presi-
dential leadership by President Truman
turned the country in the right direction.
President Clinton has the same opportunity.
Issue: Recent incidents indicate that
violence against gay men and lesbians
will increase in the military if the ban if
lifted and they serve openly.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior
military leaders are responsible for the dis-
cipline and conduct of the troops. It should
concern the U.S. public if military leaders
cannot control the actions of their well-
armed troops. If heterosexual service mem-
bers act out their bigouy through violence
against fellow gay service members, mili-
tary leaders must swiftly discipline the of-
fenders. Gen. Colin Powell and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military
leadership, must speak out as forcefully
against anti-gay violence by bigoted troops
as they have against the Commander-in-
Chicf s commitment to repeal the ban.
Issue: The military is no place for a
“social experiment” and we should re-
spect heterosexual military members who
don’t want to serve with gays.
When the military has led the nation in
implementing civil rights, critics have la-
beled it “social experiment,” such as during
the racial integration of 1948, the change to
an all-volunteer force in 1972, and the in-
clusion of women. This is not a social
experiment. In fact, gay men and lesbians
already work, live and even, in school and
sport situations, shower side-by-side with
heterosexuals throughout society. And gay
men and lesbians are in the military. Dis-
crimination is wrong and the anti-gay policy
should be repealed. The military is no place
for bigoted service members who cannot
cooperate and work with fellow Americans,
gay or straight, who wish to serve their
country.
Issue: The sexual practices of gay
men and lesbians should not be permit-
ted in the military.
Current military regulations prohibit
many private sexual activities that hetero-
sexuals engage in as frequently as gay men
and lesbians. Those codes of conduct must
be either revised to reflect the reality of
individual sexual behavior, or must be en-
forced across the board, regardless of sexual
orientation.
Issue: If the ban were lifted, would
men dance with men in officers clubs and
would women hold hands with other
women on bases?
The military already has regulations
prohibiting open displays of affection while
in uniform. This policy would not change if
the ban were repealed, and gay and lesbian
service members would be required to fol-
low the same policies as heterosexuals.
However, gay and lesbian service members
would have the right to engage in behavior
permissible for heterosexuals. Repealing
the ban would end discrimination and allow
gay and lesbian service members to serve
their country openly and with honor.
Issue: What about spousal benefits
and other unresolved issues?
While these details arc important, op-
ponents of repealing the ban are using these
issues as a smoke screen for their bigotry.
Domestic partnership and other issues are
regulated by the states and local jurisdic-
tions and policy debates will continue for
years in the public sector. The basic issue is
this — the current policy blatantly discrimi-
nates against a whole class of American
citizens and disqualifies them from military
service without justification. The policy is
wrong and must be repealed.
Issue: Many other countries pro-
hibit homosexuals from serving in the
military.
Among NATO allies of the U.S., only
Great Britain, Greece and Turkey have an
explicit policy barring gay and lesbian ser-
vice members as in the U.S. In the past yeai,
both Canada and Australia have success-
fully lifted their anti -gay bans. The world-
renowned Israeli military doesn’t ban gay
and lesbian service members. The U.S.
military should be capable of this challenge
and should move swiftly to end discrimina-
tion.
Issue: If the ban were lifted, should
gay and lesbian service members per-
haps be segregated from straight serv ice
members?
Segregated forces are unacceptable and
unnecessary. Gay and lesbian service mem-
bers already do serve side by side with
heterosexual troops. Enforcing current codes
of conduct and instilling a sense of respect
for fellow service members, regardless of
sexual orientation, is what is necessary to
maintain good order and discipline in the
troops. Segregation also sets people up for
ridicule and harassment in a confirmative
military culture.
Page 4 A The GAYTY T March 1, '93
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Shaffer, Ron & Hawkins, Don. The Gayly Oklahoman (Oklahoma City, Okla.), Vol. 11, No. 5, Ed. 1 Monday, March 1, 1993, newspaper, March 1, 1993; Oklahoma City, Okla.. (https://gateway.okhistory.org/ark:/67531/metadc824316/m1/4/: accessed March 28, 2024), The Gateway to Oklahoma History, https://gateway.okhistory.org; crediting Oklahoma Historical Society.