LGBTQ people and military service: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:38, 14 March 2007 edit72.20.207.29 (talk) →United States' history ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:25, 15 March 2007 edit undoNil Einne (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers73,027 edits Removing excessively long and unnecessary duplicated section. This is all covered in Don't Ask, Don't Tell, no need to repeat it all againNext edit →
Line 62:		Line 62:
	* In ], those alleged to have "sexual identity problems" are to be drafted only during wartime. "Well adjusted gays" are permitted to serve in a normal capacity.		* In ], those alleged to have "sexual identity problems" are to be drafted only during wartime. "Well adjusted gays" are permitted to serve in a normal capacity.

	==United States' history==
	In 1994 ] journalist ] published what is considered to be a definitive history of ] in the Armed Forces, from the American Revolutionary War to the first Persian Gulf War, '']''. The book's extensive interviews with numerous servicemen and women, along with historical research of the Armed Forces treatment of homosexuality in terms of sodomy, security clearances, witch hunts, women and ethnic minorities in the military, the AIDS-HIV pandemic, and the court challenges is considered to be solid scholarly research.

	The early American revolutionary war armed forces did treat sodomy (then broadly defined as oral or anal sexual conduct) as grounds for being dishonorably discharged. The first recorded effort of such a discharge, was in ] where Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin was dishonorably discharged, with the approval of General ], for a conviction of homosexual sodomy and later perjury for lying about it. However, the American revolutionary army relied heavily on the training of the ]n drill master ], whom Shilts claims was secretly fleeing a charge in Europe for having sex with a man. The ] kept the crime of sodomy, but it was not until ] that the Armed Forces ruled that homosexual status was considered grounds for being separated from the military, through a process of recruitment screening, and internal investigations that some historians have seen as being witch-hunts. Thus, self-identified homosexuals and ]s, as well as those who engaged in homosexual sex but did not identify as either of the preceding, in the Armed Forces were subject to criminal sanctions under the sodomy prohibition, or they could be given a dishonorable discharge, often a ] and returned to civilian life where they would not receive veterans benefits and often had difficulty finding employment because most civilian employers knew what a Section 8 discharge meant. (ibid)

	The success of the Armed Forces in pre-screening out homosexuals and bisexuals from the ] - ] remains in dispute, and during the Vietnam Conflict some heterosexuals would try to pretend to be gay in order to avoid the draft. However, a significant number of gay men and women did manage to avoid the pre-screening process and serve in the military, some with special distinction. For example, in the 1950s - 1960s the Navy medical doctor ] received national fame for his anti-Communist and humanitarian efforts in Vietnam. His homosexuality was something of an open secret in the Navy, but eventually he was forced to resign and the Navy conducted the first official study on sexual orientation and the Navy regulations and rules. The 1957 report, titled ''Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directives Dealing With Homosexuals'' (aka the Crittenden Report) found that homosexuals were no more likely to be a security risk than heterosexuals and found there were no rational basis for excluding homosexuals from the Navy, although it did not define exactly what a heterosexual or homosexual was, and stopped short of recommending a change in the regulations because of society's social mores. (ibid)

	Beyond the official regulations, anyone accused of homosexual activity was often the target of various types of harassment by their fellow self-identified heterosexual servicemen, designed to persuade them to resign from the military or turn themselves in to investigators. The most infamous type of such harassment was called a "blanket party" and involved several other service members during the night in the barracks, who first covered the face of the victim with a blanket and then committed assault, often quite severely and occasionally even fatally. The introduction of "]" with the later amendment of "don't harass, don't pursue" has officially prohibited such behavior, but reports suggest that such harassment is still commonplace. A common tactic aimed at women is ], where a man will demand sexual relations with women, and if she does not comply, he will turn her in as a ]. The degree of official and unofficial attempts to separate homosexuals from the armed forces seems to be directly related to the personnel needs of the armed forces. Hence, during wartime, it has not been uncommon for the rules regarding homosexuality to be relaxed, and up until 1981 it was the policy of all branches of the armed forces to retain someone who had engaged in homosexual activity, at their discretion, thus promoting the "queen for a day" rule. This especially became the case during the Vietnam War, where some would fake homosexuality in an attempt to avoid being drafted or to be discharged rather than be shipped to Vietnam. (ibid)

	However, during the 1970s several high-profile court challenges to the military's regulations on homosexuality occurred, with little success, and when such successes did occur it was when the plaintiff had been open about his homosexuality from the beginning or due to the existence of the "queen for a day" rule. In 1981 the ] issued a new regulation on homosexuality that was designed to ensure withstanding a court challenge by developing uniform and clearly defined regulations and justifications that made "homosexual status" and conduct grounds for discharge (DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), January, 1981):

	:"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to insure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security." (ibid)

	The directive justified the policy and removed the "queen for a day" rule that had prompted some courts to rule against the Armed Forces. However, the intent of the policy had also been to treat homosexuality as being akin to a disability discharge, and thus ensure that anyone identified as a homosexual would be separated with an honorable discharge. The DOD policy has since withstood most court challenges, although the ] has refused to weigh in on the constitutionality of the policy, preferring to allow lower courts and the ] to settle the matter. (ibid)

	However, in the ] many of the ] presidential candidates had expressed an interest in changing the regulations concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, and, as American society's social mores changed, public opinion began to express more sympathy with homosexuals in armed forces, at least to the extent that investigations into a serviceman or womans's sexual orientation were seen as a witch-hunt. When Democratic Presidential candidate ] won the election in 1992, the issue of "gays in the military" became a national issue. (ibid)

	In 1992, the United States General Accounting Office published a report titled ''Defense Force Management: DOD’s Policy on Homosexuality. GAO/NSAID-92-98'', that outlined the DOD policy on homosexuality and the reasons for it. The also included excerpts from a previously unpublished 1988 DOD study on homosexuality that made similar conclusions as the 1957 Crittenden Report. In 1993 the two reports were published alongside an argument by an Armed Forces general who argued against lifting the ban on homosexuals based on a belief that homosexuals pose a security risk, will erode unit cohesion and morale alongside the argument that most homosexuals are ]s who engage in a self-destructive and immoral life-style. (ibid)

	Congressional opposition to lifting the ban on homosexuals in the Armed Forces was led by ] Senator ] of ], who organized Congressional hearings that largely buffed the Armed Forces position that has remained unchanged since the 1981 directive. While Congressional support for reform was led by Democratic Congressmen ] of ], who fought for a compromise, and retired ] Senator ], who argued for a complete repeal of the ban. Social conservative interest groups successfully flooded the Congressional phone lines with oppositions to lifting the ban, and for his part, President Clinton soon backed off on his campaign promise to lift the ban on homosexuals in the Armed Forces. The final result was a Congressional compromise of "Don't ask, don't tell" that was later amended to include "don't harass." Officially, the compromise dictates that the Armed Forces will no longer ask recruits about their sexual orientation, will not investigate any serviceman or woman's sexual orientation without solid evidence (thus preventing witch-hunts), and servicemen and women agree that they will not engage in homosexual sex acts, or do anything that announces that they are a self-identified homosexual, i.e. public statements or participation in a same-sex marriage. However, the number of people discharged from the Armed Forces for practising homosexual sex, after the change in policy, actually grew, as did reports of harassment and unsuccessful court challenges. (ibid)

	In 2000, Northwestern University Professor Charles Moskos, the principal author of DADT, told "Lingua Franca" that he felt that policy will be gone within five to ten years. Moskos also dismissed the unit cohesion argument, instead arguing that homosexuals should be banned due to "modesty rights," saying "Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that...I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay ." Moskos did not offer any alternative to his DADT policy. (ibid)

	In January 2005, it was reported by the Department of Defense that between the fiscal years 1998 and 2003, twenty ]- and six ]-language experts were separated from the Armed Forces due to "telling." Such language experts are considered particularly difficult to recruit and highly valuable considering the level of American military activity in the Middle East. (ibid)
	] (third from left) unsuccessfully attempted to repeal the policy]]

	In April 2005 ]'s ] issued a recommendation that definition of sodomy should be revised from "unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex" to only involve cases of force or involvement of a minor below the age of sixteen, but ] quickly denounced the statement. (ibid)

	On September 13, 2005, the , a ] affiliated with the ], issued a news release revealing the existence of a 1999 ] regulation (Regulation 500-3-3) that allowed the active duty deployment of Army Reservists and National Guard troops who say they are gay or who are accused of being gay. U.S. Army Forces Command spokesperson Kim Waldron later confirmed the regulation and indicated that it was intended to prevent Reservists and National Guard members from pretending to be gay to escape combat.{{ref\|Blade}}

	"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been upheld five times in federal court, and in a recent ] case, ], the Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal government could withhold funding from universities in order to force them to accept military recruiters in spite of their nondiscrimination policies.{{ref\|CNN}}

	==See also==		==See also==

Revision as of 12:25, 15 March 2007

LGBTQ rights
Part of a series on

Lesbian ∙ Gay ∙ Bisexual ∙ Transgender ∙ Queer
Overview Rights Movements Student Germany (pre-1933) United States Intersex rights Social attitudes Transgender rights Legal status Movement
Aspects Decriminalization Gender self-identification Legal recognition of non-binary gender Marriage Legal status Timeline Migration Military service Organizations List Parenting Adoption Pinkwashing Relationship Recognition Right to sexuality Union
Opposition Censorship Conversion therapy Corrective rape Discrimination Criminalization of homosexuality Execution Opposition Propaganda Rhetoric Violence
Organizations LGBTQ Bisexual Intersex Community centre Medical Military and Veteran Rights Transgender United States Religious Christian Jewish Muslim
Politics Anarchism Bisexual politics Communism Conservatism Ecology Homonationalism Liberation Libertarianism Nationalism Radicalism Sexual revolution Socialism Transfeminism Political parties affiliates Political ideologies regarding LGBTQ
Timeline Years List Category
Related Discrimination Freedom Index Human rights Minority rights Legality of conversion therapy LGBTQ people in prison Right to privacy
LGBTQ portal
v t e

The militaries of the world have a variety of responses to homosexual and bisexual orientations. Some Western military forces have now removed policies excluding individuals of other sexual orientations; of the 25 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit open-homosexuals to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, two (United Kingdom and France) permit homosexuals to serve openly, and one, China, doesn't while the remaining two the United States and Russia have semi-ambiguous policies the former allowing gays to serve but in secrecy and celibacy and the former allowing only "well-adjusted" (masculine) gays, and no one with "sexual identity problems".

Policies and attitudes toward gay and lesbian personnel in the military vary widely internationally. Several countries allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and have granted them the same rights and privileges as their heterosexual counterparts. Many countries neither ban nor support gay and lesbian service members, and a small group continue to ban homosexual personnel outright.

While the question of homosexuality in the military has been highly politicized in the United States, it is not necessarily so in many countries. Generally speaking, sexuality in these cultures is considered a more personal aspect of one's identity than it is in the United States.

Countries that allow homosexual people to serve openly

Countries that ban homosexual people from serving openly in the military

Countries with other policies

The United States of America has a highly controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy, introduced during the Clinton administration and maintained through the Bush administration.

In Russia, those alleged to have "sexual identity problems" are to be drafted only during wartime. "Well adjusted gays" are permitted to serve in a normal capacity.

Source

Shilits, Randy (1994/1997/2005). Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the US Military. ?/ISBN 5-551-97352-2/ISBN 0-312-34264-0.

References

External links

Categories: