Gay soldiers have always fought in the US military. Whether they were fighting the Brits, Spaniards, Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, or the Taliban, they fought side-by-side with straight soldiers. So why is the issue of gays in the military such a big deal right now? When did the controversy start?
Apparently, according to my research, this has been an issue long before I ever knew it was - perhaps because I felt it didn't concern me or because sexual orientation was not a hot item to discuss until recently. As I searched more and more sites, though, I was amazed by the history of gays in the military. For instance, since Revolutionary days, sodomy has been grounds for a soldier to be purged from service. During WWII, psychiatrists determined if a person was gay, and then the person (even if he didn't perform any homosexual act) was not allowed to serve. During the 80s, 17,000 men and women were discharged based on sexual orientation! And today we are starting to see the supports for discrimination crumble as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is coming under fire.
As I did my research and as we discussed this topic at lunch, I had a lot of questions running through my mind. When I sat down to sift through them, though, I realized that they all related in one way or another to these two questions:
1. What would change in our military if people could freely state that they are gay? (In terms of their protection, their rights, their treatment by other soldiers, as well as the strength or our military, etc.)
2. How does this compare to other discriminations in the military, such as sexism (the discrimination against women and acts of violence upon them) and racism?
I am not sure if I can answer these questions by myself or do them justice because of their broad scopes. However, I do have a couple of insights that I would like to offer.
In relation to the first question, it seems like gays would have more protection from criminal acts than they do right now. With current policies in place, a gay soldier could not accuse another soldier of maltreatment related to his sexuality; in doing so, he would admit to being gay. So, in a way, getting rid of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" system would offer some level of rights and protection for gay soldiers. On the other hand, I can't help but worry that some gay soldiers will need more protection than these new laws or regulations can provide. I am concerned for the safety of the gay person that must live and work and fight within a culture that celebrates machismo and thrives on testosterone (and some bad behaviors that seem related though not requisite to that type of culture).
In our discussion today, Scott brought up a good counterpoint - that most people in today's military are not in that machismo, in-the-foxholes kind of culture; they are accountants, contractors, truck drivers, and mechanics. In these workers' cases, I am not sure if removing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would have huge implications. Of course, their lives would change somewhat in the office, but their physical safety (probably) would not be at risk. Those folks aside, I do worry for that smaller percentage that are engrossed in that machismo culture and fear for the safety of those who openly openly admit to being gay (or flaunt/celebrate their gayness).
But is that a reason to keep a faulty policy in place? I think most Americans would argue "no." I think we see that benefits of this omission outweigh this fear. (Though I do not think it should be ignored, especially if it has larger implications about the cohesiveness of squadrons, the trust within units, and by extension, the strength of the military overall.)
As I was further researching my answer to this question, I found an interesting blog that addressed rape in the military. Its author made the following statement: "If we were to punish women by not letting them serve their country because men are committing criminal acts, rape, against them, we would be condoning crime and not serving justice, we would be letting sexual desire supercede [sic] law" (citation) This logic can be applied to gays in the military as well. If we deny gays their rights because we are afraid of violence being inflicted upon them, then we would be placing the crime above the person and the laws.
To answer my second question - how this issue compares to controversies about race and gender in the military - I again felt under-prepared. While I am aware that race and gender have been grounds for exclusion from the armed services, I didn't have enough facts on my side to make a fair comparison. So, again, I did a little research. This is what I found in terms of race:
"Since the birth of the Republic, government decisions have been made about who shall be permitted or required to serve in the U.S. military, and under what conditions. These decisions have frequently reflected society’s attitudes toward its stigmatized minorities. Early in the Revolutionary war, for example, Black Americans were barred from service in the Continental Army. Similarly, Negroes were barred from military service early in the Civil War, despite the eagerness of many Northern Blacks to volunteer. Both policies were later reversed – when, respectively, the British began offering freedom to Black slaves who would join their side, and the Union Army faced a serious shortage of troops." (citation)
This paragraph really shed light on the connection between society's values and military policies. It seems that sexual orientation is today's debated value, and so it makes a lot of sense that policies surrounding it would be called into question. It doesn't surprise me, then, that just like Blacks being allowed in the army, openly gay people will be welcomed into the army once either need arises or society says it is okay. This issue, then, doesn't seem brand new... just different.
In discussing this issue's relevance to women in the military, I almost have too much to say; it is an essay in itself, I'm afraid. But I do want to say that I see many connections between the discriminations we have seen based on race and sexual orientation, and gender. I see how people's biases (both of those in power and those of the society at large) shape policy and keep certain groups out of certain places. And I see how those groups need to fight for equality.
I see that there will be, as one SWAP member said, "growing pains" in changing policies, but I think those pains are probably worth it in the long run.
And on one final note, I think it is important to note that just because people of different races, genders, and sexual orientations are allowed in the military (and protected to some degree), that doesn't mean that the fight is over and that equality has been achieved. When 23% of women in the national guard have experienced military sexual assault (11% have been raped), we can see that there are still flaws in our system (citation). It is my hope that our military can be stronger once these acts of violence and discrimination within our armed forces are eliminated.
Related links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/military_institutes_new
http://www.katiehalper.com/do-rape-don039t-tell-women-us-army-more-likely-get-raped-killed
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
boom
ReplyDeleteNice post A. I like your use of citations.
ReplyDeleteAnother successful consensus! We're like a 9-0 Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteMight I note the historical precedence to the openly-gay soldier?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes
(As you recall, this was mentioned by our friend Shawn at a previous discussion.)
Please go to http://elkhaircaddis.blogspot.com
ReplyDeletefor my comments. :-)
Thanks for all the comments! I think that Caddis Fly's response is an interesting one that is worth a read. If you feel compelled to respond to it, please double-post your response - on his blog and on mine.
ReplyDeleteI just posted a response to Caddis Fly's argument, and I am including it here as well:
ReplyDeleteI haven't had time to compose a though-out response yet to your well-written argument. However, I do want to throw a couple of ideas out there while they are on my mind:
1) If men have been able to see past religion and skin color in order to serve together, if they could get past those differences, then why are these same men so incapable of serving with people of different genders and sexual orientations. This seems to speak to a disturbing weakness in the abilities of the straight servicemen - to be unable to see past these differences and even inflict violence upon others within their own units. The problem here seems to lie with the sexist/bigoted men, not with the women or gays. This, to me, is not an issue of PC and not PC, and I find it sad that the very people defending our diverse country cannot seem to handle that diversity when they are surrounded by it.
2) I was utterly disturbed in your comparison of a deformed traitor of a hunchback to gays and women. C'mon. (And even to compare today's army to the army shown in 300 is a stretch - the physical demands were different, gender roles and politics within the society were different, and, perhaps most important, the approach to diversity was different.)
3) The whole idea of bunk love is silly and should be punished. That is a behavioral issue that needs to be addressed, just as any other act of poor behavior or insubordination would be punished. This should be true for straight men, for women, and for gays. The behavior is, or at least should be, the focus of the attention. The changes to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" are not giving gays the freedom to get freaky with other dudes in the foxholes; that behavior is not okay, and no one is arguing that it is.
Enough for now.