LGBT people and military service

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, nearly half (12) permit open-homosexuals to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, two (Britain, France) permit homosexuals to serve openly, and three (United States, Russia, China) do not.

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

• Argentina
• Australia
• Austria
• The Bahamas
• Belgium
• Canada
• Colombia
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Estonia http://www.outinamerica.com/home/news.asp?articleid=29873
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Hungary
• Ireland
• Israel
• Lithuania
• The Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Norway
• Poland
• Romania
• Slovenia
• South Africa
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Taiwan
• Thailand
• United Kingdom

Countries that ban homosexual people from the military

• Belarus
• Brazil
• Croatia
• Cuba
• Egypt
• Greece
• Iran
• Italy
• Latvia
• North Korea
• Peru
• Portugal
• Saudi Arabia
• Syria
• Venezuela
• Yemen

Countries with other policies

• The United States of America has a don't ask, don't tell policy.
• 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.

United States' history

In 1994 gay journalist Randy Shilts published what is considered to be a definitive history of homosexuals in the armed forces, from the American Revolutionary War to the first Persian Gulf War, Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the US Military. 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 1778 where Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin was dishonorably discharged, with the approval of General George Washington, 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 Prussian drill master Baron von Steuben, who was a confirmed bachelor and was secretly fleeing a charge in Europe for having sex with a man. The Articles of War kept the crime of sodomy, but it was not until 1942 that 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 homosexuals and bisexuals in the armed forces were subject to criminal sanctions under the sodomy prohibition or they could be given a dishonorable discharge, often a Section 8 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 1940s - 1981 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 Tom Dooley 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 reported, 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 stopped short of recommending a change in the regulations because of society's social mores. (ibid)

Beyond the official regulations, homosexuals were often the target of various types of harassment by their fellow 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 "Don't ask, don't tell" 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 lesbian baiting, where a man will demand sexual relations with women, and if she does not comply, he will turn her in as a lesbian. 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 a homosexual, at their discretion, thus promoting the "queen for a day" rule. This especially became the case during the Vietnam War, where some heterosexuals 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 Department of Defense 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 justifed 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 homosexuals would be separated with an honorable discharge. The DOD policy has since withstood most court challenges, although the United States Supreme Court has refused to weigh in on the constitutionality of the policy, preferring to allow lower courts and the United States Congress to settle the matter. (ibid)

However, in the 1980s many of the Democratic Party 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 foces, 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 Bill Clinton 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 pedophiles 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 Democrat Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia 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 Democrat Congressmen Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who fought for a compromise, and retired Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, 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 homosexual servicemen and women agree that they will not engage in homosexual sex acts, or do anything that announces that they are a homosexual, i.e. public statements or participation in a same-sex marriage. However, the number of homosexuals discharged from the armed forces 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 [man]." 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 Arabic- and six Farsi-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)

In 2005, Congressman Marty Meehan (third from left) unsuccessfully attempted to repeal the policy

In April 2005 The Pentagon's General Counsel 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 The Pentagon quickly denouced the statement. (ibid)

On September 13, 2005, the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, a think tank affiliated with the University of California, Santa Barbara, issued a news release revealing the existence of a 1999 FORSCOM 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.^[1]

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been upheld five times in federal court, and in a recent Supreme Court case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 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.^[2]

See also

• Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece

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.

External links

• Military Culture: European
• Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military of the University of California, Santa Barbara
• Proud2Serve.net: Information and Resources on the UK Armed Forces approach to homosexuality
• Human Rights Watch report: Uniform Discrimination The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy of the U.S. Military
• Survivor bashing - bias motivated hate crimes
• History of gay and lesbian discrimination in Canadian Military
• A New Kind of War, An Old Kind of Prejudice by Brian W. Fairbanks
• The Military's Ban Against Homosexuals Should Remain