We are going to critically examine the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and conclude whether or not this is once again heterosexism at work or a legitimate consequence the military institution must undergo in order to function effectively.
We are also going to hold a mirror up to this institution, which espouses a code of honor, fidelity and courage, as well as a commitment to liberty. We will also investigate the multitude of inconsistencies that inflate the exclusionary decree of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
To begin, we need to understand the policy in a nutshell and what it precisely attempts to order. Luckily, the military’s entire code can be found on Cornell’s law Web site.
Below you will find the specific policies, sections and provisions that I will examine. For the sake of expediency they are listed together and labeled just as they are under Title 10, subtitle A, part II of chapter 37 and section 654 which regards all things concerning homosexual behavior in the military.
Though this document begins outlining behaviors before it even defines them, we will begin under section (f) of “Definitions,” where the military has defined the American homosexual. What is of particular note here is that one doesn’t even need to commit the crime to be guilty of it. In fact, this document makes it strikingly apparent that you are guilty before proven innocent under the indicting line, “... intends to engage in homosexual acts ... ”
Don’t all gays tacitly “intend” to engage in homosexual behavior? If it is by the nature of homosexuality to be attracted to the same gender, then why allow lesbian and gay people to serve at all if you are even going to deny them thought and inclination? The military does not offer any kind of legitimate chance for the lesbian and gay community to serve because even if one follows the rules by staying quiet and lying about who you are, you are still guilty of simply being.
It seems illogical that in a country such as ours anyone would be asked to do such a thing. I think few Americans understand the sacrifices that gay and lesbian servicemen make to defend this country. Such a denial of self is profound in its psychological consequences.
Regardless, this reminds me of the “Minority Report,” a movie with Tom Cruise where people were arrested before they committed any crime. It’s a suffocating request to make — even after being told to remain in the closet, gays and lesbians are then further pressured to even keep their thoughts deadened. One may consider theft; however, they should not be sent to prison for it. Though to be clear, I hardly believe the acts of mutual attraction and love between adults should warrant punishable offenses under any circumstance.
Let’s focus on the definition of a homosexual again: Anyone is gay who intends to engage in, engages in, or has a propensity for homosexual acts. Those are further detailed in provisions A and B beneath section (f) of “Definitions.” With these in mind, we will run into a variety of inconsistencies.
If we look under policy (b) of this masterful piece of work we can see that there are a series of exceptions to the rule when it comes to booting homosexuals from the service. If one is popular enough, useful enough, or has something the military needs or desires, the identity can be tolerated and potentially used against the person. In fact, policy (b) makes it very clear that homosexuality, far from actually being a legitimate disturbance, is little more than a pitfall that the armed forces can use to dispose summarily of whomever it pleases — especially because of the ambiguity of the crime.
Because one only needs to “intend” to engage in homosexual behavior, and because the definition of “homosexual acts” is defined so broadly, a meticulous and over-analytical examination of any number of human interactions could be construed as homosexual.
The line is further blurred by section 2 under policy (b), where one may claim to be homosexual without actually intending to engage in, engaging in, or having a propensity for homosexual acts. Yet as I noted earlier, the military defines a homosexual as having these very attributes. It boldly purports to know true homosexuals from incidental homosexuals as well, stating in provisions A and B under section 1 of policy (b) that the military can tell, indeed by some measure beyond even modern psychology, what is within one’s nature, as though sexuality is a fixed, inflexible identity. I was unaware until this point that the armed forces could read minds.
So we see here that one can even profess to be a homosexual but the military can identify the real from the false — an act even Kinsey could not perform. We also see that homosexuals are acceptable so far as their perceived utility and worth suffices.
This is a purposeful set of dangerous inconsistencies that gives our armed forces totalitarian flexibility. Because the military has not properly defined homosexuality or a homosexual, it can at whim decide what that act and identity constitutes. This would be like saying a woman is one who has breasts, a uterus, and feminine manners — but also one who might not contain a uterus and breasts but still exhibits feminine manners. So here we see that the definition of a woman can be extended to anyone, especially since “feminine manners” is never appropriately defined.
It is also my contention that sexuality is not something that one can discern by verbal or physical act alone. Because of the intense secrecy behind every person’s sex life, this is an unenforceable policy by and large, especially since “don’t ask, don’t tell” dictates that the military cannot seek out homosexual persons or behavior, but simply discover it. Hence the “don’t ask, don’t tell” mantra.
There is then the issue of morale and risk, as defined by section 14 under “Findings.” One of the arguments against homosexuality in the armed forces is that it diminishes morale and presents an unacceptable risk. They rationalize this with section 15, predicated of course upon absolutely nothing. It is founded strictly upon the paranoid fear of insecure heterosexuals.
First of all, it excludes heterosexual behavior as being entirely risky, which makes this particularly sticky because men raping women occurs within the military. Also, there is the issue of general sexism that is quite pervasive. As a person who has several family members who’ve served, I’d know.
Also, this policy was done at a time when homosexuality was something to be ashamed of and could be used to blackmail a person for state or military secrets. An incident, by the way, that was never recorded as having transpired and was only possible because of the stigma heterosexuals placed upon homosexuality.
Given the openness of modern America, this is hardly an issue. Secondly, a heterosexual soldier’s love for the opposite gender could easily be exploited on the battlefield. So again, this is a silly argument to make exclusive to homosexuality.
The other issue concerning this section is that homosexuality is risky, which is an unproven presumption. And for any instance when homosexuality is risky, a heterosexual equivalent could easily be found, especially given the co-ed nature of the modern military. And again, the armed forces implicates that both a propensity and intent to engage in homosexuality is risky. Yet as we have already found, there are cases when the military may conveniently decide that one is not homosexual enough to be released. The ambiguous term “unnecessary risk” is held as a legal fig leaf with which to hide a clear and present homophobia within the armed forces.
The issue of morale is a broad one. There are multiple facets of a person’s personality that could diminish morale in a military unit. Bigotry, intolerance and paranoia are just a few. Yet it seems one’s sexuality is the most destructive of all, so much so that an entire section needed to be written about it.
Further, Congress states that serving in the armed forces is not a constitutional right, which is surprisingly correct considering all the other blunders this legal proclamation makes.
However, if it’s not a constitutional right, then it should also not be a constitutional obligation, and as accounts of World War I and II will tell you, homosexuality was overwhelmingly tolerated as long as people were needed.
Mind you this was at a time when homosexuality as a whole was reason enough to exclude one from service. So again, we see the hypocrisy of the military and the fair-weather attitude it takes regarding its own policies.
But because volunteers were short and manpower was in demand, it did not matter if you were gay or straight, and morale didn’t seem to be an issue. But all of a sudden, when its needs came to an end, homosexuality was an issue again.
It should be recognized that Austria, Belgium, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, the U.K., Sweden and South Africa all allow gay people to serve openly in the military.
The last time I checked, none of these militaries fell into disarray or lost any great number of valued servicemen when the policies were enacted.
It is also of note that multiple officers, all of whom served for decades in the armed forces, were uncovered and exposed by nosey civilians who violated the personal privacy of the officers. The officers were released from service on what was usually no more than hearsay and conjecture for committing the broad and ambiguous sexual acts defined under chapter 37. These are men and women who served their country, made no public issue of their sexuality and were decorated upstanding officers. The military that employed them gave them dishonorable discharges and made certain they could no longer access any of their benefits. However, this is hardly a new practice.
After reading these regulations and comparing some of the sections, there can be no doubt of the unfounded discriminatory nature that “don’t ask, don’t tell” was built upon and the profound lack of evidence that was used to substantiate it. There is no basis for homosexuality diminishing morale, only fear. There is no basis for the destruction of group cohesion based solely on homosexuality, just paranoia, and there is something disappointing and shameful in the fair-weather attitude of the enactment and pursuit of these exclusionary policies. As a result, I have trouble looking upon this military institution with the same veneration I had before.
It gives me doubt as to the kind and types of liberties it wishes to protect.