Here we go again; another debate on gays in the military. Having written a dozen or so pieces on the topic and having debated it on TV and radio several times, I’ve heard all the pros and cons. I’m frankly bored with the topic and so are most of the service members and ex-members I’ve talked with. But it won’t go away because gay rights activists won’t let it, so once again we’ll hear pundits and politicians who haven’t a clue as to what service life or the warrior culture is all about weigh in on the topic.
President Barack Obama, rebuffed in his attempt to force a complex, over-reaching and unwanted healthcare overhaul on the public, will now try to achieve a few smaller victories to appease his disappointed liberal base. He vowed to end the military’s policy prohibiting openly gay persons from serving in the military. He has a powerful ally in the person of the nation’s top military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Adm. Mullen, moreover, is a member of that most conservative and tradition-bound of services, the Navy, and a surface warfare officer who has served in and commanded combatant ships which present perhaps the biggest challenge to successfully integrating openly gay personnel, as was the case when women were first integrated into ship crews. He is certainly familiar with shipboard conditions and the privacy arguments.
One of the reasons why this debate won’t go away is that, like the issue of same sex marriage, the “don’t ask-don’t tell” policy represents one of the last barriers to full acceptance in America of the gay lifestyle. Allowing openly gay persons to serve in the military would be tantamount to a federal endorsement of that lifestyle as a wholesome alternative to heterosexual behavior.
Proponents of dropping the ban sense that their time has come. They may be right. When former president Bill Clinton tried to end the ban by executive order, the ensuing uproar in the services forced him to back down. The “don’t ask-don’t tell” compromise resulted, was codified into law by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. Gay rights activists insist the policy forces gay service members to “live a lie” by concealing their sexual orientation. If the policy is to be changed now, the law must be changed. That may not prove easy. Congress is usually reluctant to take action that may hurt military morale, cohesion, effectiveness and recruiting. An all-volunteer force depends on the latter.
Adm. Mullen’s endorsement notwithstanding, the military leadership is far from unanimous in supporting this proposed change. Defense secretary Robert Gates wants the matter thoroughly studied before a decision is made. By all means, let it be studied (again). Herewith are some considerations that should help guide that study.
Gays are already serving honorably in the military. They have been since the services were founded. The current policy prohibits them from openly proclaiming their sexual orientation. There is a difference between someone who engages in homosexual behavior in private and one who openly proclaims that he or she is physically attracted to persons of the same sex.
It is wrong and illegal to discriminate in employment practices on the basis of sexual orientation. Military service, however, is not just another occupation subject to equal opportunity rules. There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces. They, in fact, discriminate regularly on the basis of age, intelligence, weight, height, physical strength and condition, behavior and criminal record, aptitude, physical and mental disability, temperament and in some cases, gender. It is an utterly unique profession that exists primarily to fight and win wars, not to provide career opportunities.
There are undoubtedly many who dislike gays for who they are. That would be bigotry. But there are, certainly, more who accept and respect gays but who find homosexual behavior repugnant and believe it to be immoral. They may have no problem working with or socializing with gays but would be uncomfortable in the intimate living conditions found in the services and especially onboard ship. Religious- based beliefs regarding immorality held by a large percentage of the population cannot just be dismissed as bigotry or homophobia or legislated away.
There is very little space for privacy in a barracks, tent or a ship. But even sailors and marines on board ship are entitled to some degree of privacy. It was a primary concern when we integrated women into shipboard crews. Many straight crewmembers would feel uncomfortable sharing a shower or small berthing compartment with an openly gay person or persons. Politicians and pundits who are pushing a change in policy should volunteer to spend, say, a six-month deployment on a small Navy ship or submarine to get a better sense of the problems involved.
Comparing the issue of integrating openly gay personnel into the armed forces with the resistance experienced in integrating African Americans and women is simply not valid. Race and gender are benign conditions. At issue in the debate on gays in the military is behavior. One point of comparison, however, may be valid. While the integration of women into operational and combat roles including shipboard duty was successful, problems with fraternization were experienced. With the integration of openly gay personnel, these problems will likely compound. This is a problem that the services do not need.
“Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” can be improved by stricter enforcement of those two imperatives and perhaps by adding a third, to wit: Don’t even try to find out and use the authority, flexibility and common sense that military commanders already are supposed to have in enforcing this policy.
Copyright 2010 by J. F. Kelly, Jr.
