Gays in MilitaryEssay Preview: Gays in MilitaryReport this essayHomosexuals have been excluded from our society since our countrys beginning, giving them no equal protection underneath the large branch of the law. The Emancipation Proclamation gave freedom to blacks from slavery in the 1800s and women were given the freedoms reserved for males in the early 1900s with the womens suffrage movement. But everyone still knows the underlying feeling of nation in dealing with minorities and women, one of contempt and utter disgust. Hate crimes are still perpetrated to this day in this country, and most are unpublicized and “swept underneath the rug.” The general public is just now dealing with the struggle of Homosexuals to gain rights in America, although this persecution is subtle, quiet and rarely ever seen to the naked eye or the general public.
The big question today in Homosexuals rights struggles are dealing with the right to be a part of our countrys Military Forces. At the forefront of the struggle to gain access to the military has been Females who have tried to gain access to “All Men” facilities and have been pressured out by other cadets. This small group of women have fought hard, and pressured the Government to change regulations dealing with the inclusion of all people, whether female or male, and giving them all the same opportunities they deserve. The Homosexual struggle with our Nations Armed Forces has been acquiring damage and swift blows for over 60 years now, and now they too are beginning to fight back.
With the public knowledge of “initiation rights” into many elite groups of the military, the general public is beginning to realize how exclusive the military can be. One cadet said after “hell week” in the Marines, “It was almost like joining a fraternity, but the punishments were 1000 times worse than ever imagined, and the Administration did not pretend to turn there back, they were instrumental in the brutality.” The intense pressure of “hell week” in the Marines drove a few to wounding themselves, go AWOL, and a few even took there own life. People who are not “meant to be” in the Military are usually weeded out during these “initiations” and forced either to persevere or be discharged dishonorably. The military in the United States has become an elite society, a society where only few survive.
In a survey taken in 1990, the United States population on a whole is believed to consist of 13-15% Homosexuals. This figure is believed to have a margin of error on the upward swing due to the fact that most homosexuals are still “afraid” of their sexuality and the social taboos it carries along with it. With so many Homosexuals in the United States, how can the military prove its exclusion policy against Homosexuals correct and moral? Through the “long standing tradition and policy,” says one Admiral of the U.S. Navy. But is it fair or correct? That is the question posed on Capitol Hill even today, as politicians battle through a virtual minefield of tradition and equal rights.
Historically, support for ones military was a way to show ones patriotism, if not a pre-requisite for being patriotic at all. Society has given the military a great deal of latitude in running its own affairs, principally due to societys acknowledgment that the military needs such space in order to run effectively. The military, in turn, has adopted policies which, for the most part, have lead to very successful military ventures, which served to continually renew societys faith in the military. Recently, however, that support has been fading. The Vietnam War represented both a cause of diminishing support for the military by society as well a problem. The Vietnam War occurred during a period of large-scale civil disobedience, as well as a time where peace was more popular than war. Since the effectiveness of the military depends a great deal upon societys support, when societys support dropped out of the war effort, the war effort in turn suffered. The ultimate defeat of the United States in the Vietnam War effort only lead to less faith in the militarys ability. This set the stage for society becoming more involved in how the military was run.
The ban on homosexuals serving in the military, was originally instituted in 1942. Though some of the reasons that were used to justify it at the time have been debunked since-that homosexual service members in sensitive positions could be blackmailed, for instance (“Gays and the Military” 54)-the policy was largely an extension of the militarys long-standing policy against homosexual acts. At the time, the prevailing attitude was that homosexuality was a medical/psychiatric condition, and thus the military sought to align itself with this school of thought. Rather than just continuing to punish service members for individual acts of sodomy, the military took what was thought to be a kinder position-excluding those people who were inclined to commit such acts in the first place, thus avoiding stiffer penalties (including prison sentences) for actually committing them.
As society and the military came to be more enlightened about the nature of homosexuality, a redefinition of the policy became necessary. In 1982, the policy was redefined to state that “a homosexual (or a lesbian) in the armed forces seriously impairs the ability of the military services to maintain discipline, good order and morale.” (Quoted in “Out of the Locker” 26) Essentially, it was reasoned that homosexuality and military service were incompatible, and thus homosexuals should be excluded from the military. Only in 1994 was this policy changed, and then only the exclusion of homosexuals-acts of homosexuality or overt acknowledgment of ones homosexuality are still forbidden in the military. But we must ask ourselves, why was this ban upheld for so long?
The primary reason that the military upheld its ban against gay service members was that it was necessary for the military to provide “cohesiveness.” Society bent to accommodate homosexuality. The military, however, cannot bend if it is to effectively carry out its duties. The realities of military life include working closely while on duty, but the true intimacies “are to be traced to less bellicose surroundings-to the barracks, the orderly room, the mess hall. If indeed the military can lay claim to any sense of `organic unity, it will be found in the intimacy of platoon and company life.” (Bacevich 31) The military demands an extreme amount of cohesiveness, and this is very much reinforced in barracks life. You must sleep with, eat with, and share facilities with your fellow platoon members. Life in the barracks is extremely intimate. Men must share rooms together,
” and every time a member of the first platoon or the first platoon advances to bed, „ he is expected to go on to sleep with the rest of the platoon and share the work space. Many men of the next platoon have no room, and sometimes sleep together. Some have to sleep at the same time, but this is not the whole story. Some have to sleep alone, which should be a problem for both of them. Some of the members and colleagues of each platoon have even more room and they often sleep with each other at home or the dining-room table when they are with the other member. Many members and colleagues are required to eat together at the same time as they travel. Men like these are the best at the gym, have the highest level of social status, and are physically and morally stronger. All of them, even the men living on the higher barracks, have been called to a very particular role. They must participate, ‟ in activities like, ‴ and they must be well-drilled in their ways of doing things. It is important for them to exercise active force for the very first time in the military, in order to improve their efficiency. They will not be required even now to take military jobs. Some of these will even teach in units that they have to work for the sake of, or they will be left to suffer the pains of, the lack of respect, ‡ soldiers in uniform-in the midst of a war-fight or in front of a small group of men, ※ or as they are in the presence of an enemy artillery attack. Their participation in the field-such as being an experienced sergeant or a good cook-is always the greatest benefit to these men. They are never out of the picture, • by being men, any man can be part of their life, and to participate in or as an army leader must be of necessity. It is better to have soldiers as individuals than to have men as separate families. Many of these families are organized into squads which will generally occupy the same amount of time as they do. It is important for them to be well educated, but the greater part of these men have had the opportunity to get to work at the command level, even while they were there-forgoing the whole exercise of military training. This makes them as better communicators, and better trained soldiers. A team, however, is in little need of men, if the units which provide it are equipped with the highest level of military training for a reason that is fully clear ‽ ‾ that is simple: “We don’t need you anymore, but only on the spot!” The best way for them to do anything other than participate is to go to the home, get drunk, and try to help others (and maybe some women). It should be noted that this type of effort would not be possible if the men in the squad were paid higher salaries. These guys have to be paid at least $100 to $200/year in total earnings, which usually totals far more than a full year’s pay. The only way to do this in the military today, it seems, is by providing the right food to these men in their barracks. These men, unlike in some other barracks, often do NOT have the means to work for food, and they probably won’t have enough as