Gay’s in the United States Military, Research Paper Example

The American Militant State of Non-Acceptance of Homosexuality

Many US Citizens believe that homosexual men should not be allowed in the military because they pose a threat to security and would be a detriment to the military unit.  There is some credence to this, particularly in combat situations, the military work as a tight-knit team and they need to fully rely upon one another. Psychology is such that the soldiers need to bond and as such a gay man might become an ‘outsider’ and potentially put himself and the unit at risk. Personalities of gay men are often softer and as such they may not stand up to interrogations if captured and thereby promote a security risk.  In 1993, General Colin Powell was opposed but promoted a “don’t ask”, “don’t tell” policy, which will be abbreviated as DADT in the remainder of this paper.

According to Rummiler, “The nation’s top two defence officials called Tuesday for an end to the sixteen-year-old DADT law, a major step toward allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the U.S. military for the first time”[1]. In the UK on 13th January 2000, the Defence Minister ended the ban on gays in the UK armed forces “Gay men and women now serve with pride and distinction alongside their heterosexual colleagues at the front line of operations worldwide – no longer having to hide” [2]. Until the 1993 DADT laws were passed, homosexuality was a crime according to military law and thus punishable at the discretion of the U.S. Tribunal heading up the court martial procedures[3]

Research suggests that eight in ten support gay men and women being allowed to serve in the armed forces.  There is also evidence to suggest that this does not impact existing military efficiencies. In fact, it seems likely that many soldiers are already aware of their sexual orientation of their colleagues—they must know they exist—and still manage to carry on with their tasks [4]. In 2010 in Washington the Secretary of Defence told Congress that the time had come to end the secretive policy on homosexual men and women serving in the armed forces. The top military and civilian leaders of the Defense Department made a bold move this week in front of Congress, taking a stand that openly gay men and women should be allowed to serve in uniform. “The time has come”, said Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, “to end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’”[5].

One of the key concerns was that of the impact of gay serviceman might have on the recruitment of civilians to the armed forces.  Opponents stated that open recruitment and retention would drastically reduce the number of people wishing to make the armed services a career.  It was reported to congress that peer-reviewed journals in a number of overseas countries had cited there was no such detrimental effect. According to the Palm Center report, twenty-four foreign militaries allow homosexuals to serve openly, and none have reported a negative impact to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, or retention [6].

The security issues came out of Operation Iraqi Freedom where statements were made about gay soldiers being more receptive to issues of blackmail “that gay soldiers are more prone to blackmail than straight ones and therefore pose a security risk” more to homophobia and bigotry than it does to the sexuality of this minority”[7] Journalistic evidence supports that active service gay personnel carried out their duties with the same degree of professionalism as heterosexual soldiers.

Still, the nature of military service requires a sense of justice and punishment through violence. As such, gay service members are at a particular disadvantage when they are ‘outed’; this sense of justice, punishment, and entitlement may extend past militant duties to condemnatory action against homosexual men especially. In Belkin’s “Spam Filter: Gay Rights and the Normalization of the Male-Male Rape in the U.S. Military”, a series of interviews revealed a disturbing example of this nature. In 1972, one soldier at Fort Jackson spotted a long line leading up to the bathroom. Curious, he investigated and discovered that the platoon was forcing a gay man to perform oral sex on each man in the line[8]. The gay man was a service member. This is a focal point of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” arguments by service members of all sexual orientations. If potential recruits realize that even military training cannot prevent an attack from amongst their fellow combatants, then they might waver or choose not to enlist[9].

Such barriers to social cohesion have kept the momentum of the DADT laws going for years. It has long been theorized that two types of cohesion are necessary to the optimal performance of any group of service members: task and social. Psychological perspectives conjecture that homosexual men and women who are “out” have less anxiety and are then able to perform their tasks with less anxiety, allowing the gay individuals to perform these tasks better than before[10]. In “Rights and Fights: Sexual Orientation and Military Effectiveness”, Barkawi and Dandekar point out that desegregation was long discouraged on the same grounds of hypothetical threat to cohesion- but continue to support the assertion that harassment of homosexuals will inevitably continue to occur due to the “heterosexist and masculine culture” of the military in America[11]

However, the exact effects of lifting the military gay ban is no longer a subject of conjecture; Australia, Canada, and Israel (in addition to Britain, as mentioned previously) were extensively studied before, during, and after their change in military policy. Canada’s change of position was based upon a judicial ruling in 1992; also in 1992, Prime Minister Keating reversed the laws in a liberal time in Australia’s government- a time which sought to build international connections and a reputation for upholding human rights; Israel’s 1993 shifts responded to public outrage involving a case; Britain determined that such a distinction interfered with the individual’s right to privacy. Out of 104 experts interviewed after these changes, none reported any adverse effects to the concerns which bar homosexual openness in the recent U.S. military[12].

References

Barkawi, Tarak, Christopher Dandeker, Melissa Wells-Petry, and Elizabeth Kier. 1999. “Rights & Fights: Sexual Orientation and Military Effectiveness.” International Security 24, no. 1: 181. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed August 25, 2010).

Belkin, Aaron. 2003. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity?.” Parameters: US Army War College 33, no. 2: 108. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed August 24, 2010).

Belkin, Aaron. 2008. “Spam Filter: Gay Rights and the Normalization of Male-Male Rape in the U.S. Military.” Radical History Review no. 100: 180-185. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed August 21, 2010).

Florida, Nik. Integrity: A Core Army Value. 6 6 2010. 9 8 2010 <http://nikflorida.org/2010/06/06/admin/integrity-a-core-army-value/>.

Jones, Craig. Gay in the Armed Forces. 28 7 2008. 9 8 2010 <http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/07/armed-forces-gay-women>.

Lynch, Matthew P. 2008. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” revisited: debunking the unit-cohesion rationale for the continuing exclusion of gays from the military.” University of Louisville Law Review 47, no. 2: 391-408. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed August 23, 2010).

Michaels, Samantha. The time has come. 5 2 2010. 9 8 2010 <http://medillnsj.org/02/2010/news-and-analysis/the-time-has-come/>.

Rumiller, Elisabeth. US calls for end to ban on gays in armed forces. 3 2 2010. 9 8 2010 <http://www.ndtv.com/news/world/us_calls_for_end_to_ban_on_gays_in_armed_forces.php>.

Washington, RM. “The threat of gay soldiers .” The Economist (2010).

[1] Rumiller, Elisabeth. US calls for end to ban on gays in armed forces. 3 2 2010. 9 8 2010 <http://www.ndtv.com/news/world/us_calls_for_end_to_ban_on_gays_in_armed_forces.php>.

[2] Jones, Craig. Gay in the Armed Forces. 28 7 2008. 9 8 2010 <http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/07/armed-forces-gay-women>.

[3] Florida, Nik. Integrity: A Core Army Value. 6 6 2010. 9 8 2010 <http://nikflorida.org/2010/06/06/admin/integrity-a-core-army-value/>.

[4] Washington, RM. “The threat of gay soldiers.” The Economist (2010).

[5] Michaels, Samantha. The time has come. 5 2 2010. 9 8 2010 <http://medillnsj.org/02/2010/news-and-  analysis/the-time-has-come/>.

[6] Michaels, Samantha. The time has come. 5 2 2010. 9 8 2010 <http://medillnsj.org/02/2010/news-and-  analysis/the-time-has-come/>.

[7] Florida, Nik. Integrity: A Core Army Value. 6 6 2010. 9 8 2010 <http://nikflorida.org/2010/06/06/admin/integrity-a-core-army-value/>.

[8] Belkin, Aaron. 2008. “Spam Filter: Gay Rights and the Normalization of Male-Male Rape in the U.S. Military.” Radical History Review no. 100: 180-185. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed August 21 2010).

[9] Belkin, Aaron. 2008. “Spam Filter: Gay Rights and the Normalization of Male-Male Rape in the U.S. Military.” Radical History Reviewno. 100: 180-185. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed August 21, 2010).

[10] Lynch, Matthew P. 2008. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” revisited: debunking the unit-cohesion rationale for the continuing exclusion of gays   from the military.” University of Louisville Law Review 47, no. 2: 391-408. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed August 23, 2010).

[11] Barkawi, Tarak, Christopher Dandeker, Melissa Wells-Petry, and Elizabeth Kier. 1999.”Rights & Fights: Sexual Orientation and Military Effectiveness.” International Security 24, no. 1: 181. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed August 25, 2010).

[12] Belkin, Aaron. 2003. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity?.” Parameters: US Army War College33, no. 2: 108. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed August 24, 2010).