Ben Hill

15 December, 1993
M. Osherow

Final Position Paper

This paper focusses on the argument for lifting the ban on gays
in the military due to the honorable places that homosexual
soldiers have attained for themselves in the present and the
past, the unfair treatment inflicted upon current homosexuals in
the military, and the simple (or complex) subject of human
rights. Thus, an audience member must have an open mind on
homosexuality and will not automatically condemn someone due to
their sexual preference.

My Country, My Right to Serve

"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and
foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of
Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by
hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and
unwilling to permit the slow undoing of those human rights to
which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are
committed today, at home, and around the world."
~ J.F. Kennedy

Action by the use of military force has been a major and

unfortunate aspect of human culture since the beginning of our
existence. During that time, city states were burned, empires
were tumbled, dictator's were brought down, and countless men and
women have died on the battlefield. To speak quite plainly,
organized war did not just begin in the twentieth century. Why
is it then that we now question the future of certain brave and
notable soldiers who just happen to be attracted to members of
their own sex? Why should we deny them their culture and their
right to defend their homeland? The unfair assertion that the
presence of gays in combat situations is harmful just does not
hold water in light of the clear history of very successful
armies consisting partly of homosexual and bisexual warriors.
Homosexual men and women have been serving their countries,
tribes, and empires honorably for centuries and for no reason
should they be excluded from participation in the future on the
sole basis of their sexual preference

The actual, legal ban restricting homosexuals from military

service began in the year 1982, but this practice has a much
longer history. In World War II, "commanders were authorized to
separate people for undesirable habits or traits of character."
(Coats L 21). Since then approximately 90,000 soldiers and
sailors have been ousted from the military due to their sexual
preference. It is estimated that 1,000 homosexual military
personnel are ousted a year and tens of millions of dollars are
spent yearly to investigate them (Salholz 44). When 1,000
demonstrators marched on Washington in March of 1993, they wanted
this apparent breech of their civil and American rights
rectified.

Those in favor of lifting the ban on Gays in the military

have a very powerful argument on their side: the argument of
human rights. Simply put, homosexual soldiers and their
supporters view the military as an institution in which every
American has the right to serve. Therefore, as Americans who
have been spurned from the armed forces, they view the ban as an
act of unconstitutionality. What are the differences between
discrimination by ethnicity or gender and discrimination by
sexual preference. "It's sad," says Captain Dusty Prutt, a
former military ordained minister discharged for being a lesbian,
"the military wastes time bothering people about what they do in
their private lives rather than what they do on duty"(Gibbs 14).

Upon being booted from the military for being a lesbian,

Army Reserve captain Mary Ann Humphrey wrote a book called Ã
Country, My Right to Serve and sent a copy to General CalvinÔ
Waller who was working a General Norman Schwarzkopf's deputy in
the gulf war. He replied "I trust that you and all of the other
individuals who have experienced such discrimination will have
your day in court. It appears that society is about to accept
that every person should have the freedoms and privileges that
are granted under our great Constitution. Keep the Faith!" (Gibbs
15)

The investigations carried out by the military to nab

potential "homosexual deviants" can be characterized as a "witch
hunt on the high seas" (Salholz 45). Last year, investigators
pressured sailors to betray forty fellow seaman of which thirteen
have been discharged on the basis of sexual preference. Jerald
Johnson, a management analyst for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) was denied security clearance once his
sexual orientation was discovered. Once caught, Johnson claimed
that there were already multiple homosexual personnel on staff
who already had clearance. Upon being strictly questioned for
names, Johnson refused and withdrew his request. When he
reapplied for clearance three years later, he complied with their
demands (Salholz 45). This sort of harassment is a breech of
civil rights and can not be tolerated in our military.

Some go as far as to say that homosexuality is morally

unacceptable and an inexcusable blast against God and for all
that He/She stands and hence should not be tolerated in the
United States military. Those who use religion as their weapon
claim that the bible states that such practices are worthy of
death. In all truth, Leviticus 20:13 does read, "If a man also
lie with mankind as he lieth with woman, both of them have
committed an abomination worthy of death; their blood shall be
upon them."

Although this point does have valid argumentive value, it is

taken from an age where all romantic/sexual relationships were
strictly monitored by the church. This is taken from the same
book that claims that a man or woman who commits adultery is
worthy of death as is a child who opposes his parents. Certainly
when applying modern, civilized standards to these situations we
do not consider the punishment for any of these actions civilized
(Michener A23). In the same respect, we cannot allow the ancient
laws dominating in the time of Leviticus affect our more
civilized rational judgement in the case of homosexuals in the
military.

Supporters of the ban have claimed that "gay men will not be
able to control their sexual appetite, and rape will ensue."
(Corbett A23) Most activists view this type of "homophobia" as
the driving force behind the "anti©gay" movement in the military.
According to the activists, the stereotypical view of a gay
soldier through the eyes of a homophobe would, "parade around the
bases in makeup and leather jockstraps. They would ogle straight
men in the showers and possibly even if overcome with lust, grab
them."(Taylor 30)

The activists prefer to respond by attacking the stereotype

itself. Most feel that homosexual men are overly©feminine,
delicate, and weak. According to some historians, however, some
of those weak homosexuals include such leaders as Alexander theÔ

Great, Richard the Lionheart, and Frederick the Great (Taylor

30). World War I hero Lawrence of Arabia himself said, "men's
bodies, in repose or in movement...appeal to me directly."(Gibbs
15) The legendary Spartian armies encouraged homosexuality
thinking that it would be harder to leave a wounded lover on the
battlefield. (Taylor 30) Frederick the Great in an effort to keep
his men clean of the diseases carried around by prostitutes told
his men, "If you want sex, you know where to find it: in the
barracks." (Gibbs 15)

Some feel that homosexual soldiers would inadvertently

inflict sexual pressure upon their comrades. David Hackworth,
the most decorated US Veteran stated:

During my army career, I saw countless officers and

NCO's who couldn't stop themselves from hitting on soldiers.
The absoluteness of their authority, the lack
of privacy, enforced intimacy, and the 24 hour duty day
made sexual urges difficult to control. (Coats L21)_
Supporters firmly believe that this new homoerotic
atmosphere will break the fighting spirit of the male soldiers.
Captain Gregory Markwell, commanding officer of Petty Officer
Keith Meinhold who won a case for reinstatement in January,
claims that the presence of a gay soldier was completely ruining
morale at his post (Downing 42). Supporters claim that the
intimacy of the military ranges from communal showers to inch
length closeness in submarines.

"To survive in a killing field, a warrior has to believe

he's invincible," retired Colonel David Hackworth wrote in
Newsweek. "To think that way, he has to be macho. Fairly or
unfairly, gays threaten that macho" (Taylor 21). Seemingly, Mr.Ô

Hackworth feels that homosexuality is some sort of contagious

disease that will infect anyone with ten yards of it. This seem
to be the general misconception of the military. According to
Los Angeles Times, when Marines were arrested for badgering
and beating patrons of a gay bar on capital hill, activists
offered to administer seminars on homosexuality to alleviate
potential fears. Marine Commandant General Alfred Gray dismissed
the idea on the grounds that it might persuade soldiers into a
life of homosexuality.

Similar misguided paranoias are evident in the mind set that

lifting the ban will lead to illicit displays of homosexuality
eventually creating conflict within the ranks and an increased
"homoerotic" atmosphere that would distract the heterosexual
soldiers from their current task. (Coats L21) As Admiral Thomas
Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff so
eloquently stated on This Week with David BrinkleyÄ
, "Sooner or later, you're going to have men kissing and hugging and whatever"
(Taylor 21). This notion presents combat soldiers as chaste and
pure©bread souls who would be horribly offended at even the
slightest sexual inuedno.-
The reality is that "towel-snapping, crotch©grabbing,
Locker room horseplay is rampant" (Taylor 21). Many of these
activities are what people in the 1950's labeled as "latently
homosexual." Who can forget the 'Tailhook Scandal' in which two
young, drunk pilots were photographed with their genitals hanging
out of their pants (Taylor 21). It is inconceivable how any
further "eroticism" could exist with the addition of homosexualÔ
tolerance.

Unfortunately, there have been incidents where one soldier

supposedly ruins the morale of an entire command, but can this
not be due to a simple initial weakness in character evident in
the command before that soldier even came to his post? If the
military is such a well unified organization, how could one man
possibly ruin that sense of unity? The fact that gays have had
to deny their natural feelings and live out their military
careers in the closet is substantially more indicative of strong
character than a command ruined by one man. As John D'Emillo, a
history professor at the University of North Carolina put it,
"The argument for morale can be reduced to the fear of straight
men being stared at in the shower" (Salholz 44).

If the assessment that the presence of homosexuals in the

military would completely disrupt procedure is true, how does
one account for the homosexuals currently enrolled and serving in
the armed forces? Considering the statistic which claims that
ten percent of the human race is homosexual (Taylor 21), we can
only assume that 180 thousand soldiers of the 1.8 million men and
women currently enrolled are homosexual. Has this made it a less
efficient fighting force in the slightest? The fact that
homosexuals are allowed to serve in the French, German, and
Israeli military disproves any possible notion that homosexual
soldiers are disruptive.

Sergeant Jose M. Zuniga, awarded Sixth Soldier of the Year

in 1993, revealed himself as a homosexual in a letter to
The NewYork TimesÄ in April. He told horror stories of laughing at
homosexual based jokes, watching gays being harassed, and "waging
an emotional battle against living a life of confusion."(Zuniga E
17) He claims that the Army forced him to deny his true feelings
and to conform to the principles of "morality" which the military
had delineated. "I cannot continue to serve my country when the
choice is to set aside my honor and live a lie," he spoke(Zuniga
E17). His apparent "disruptive" presence is not only one that
has served with merited distinction, but one that has saved the
lives of countless American soldiers. We must not allow such
soldiers to be booted out of our defensive forces over such
trivial and unrelated matters.

Supporters and critics of the gay ban hold one thing in

common: they are both concerned with the efficiency of the force
defending this country. Those in favor of the ban feel that
homosexuals are not fit for military service and will act as a
disruption in military procedures. As we have seen in trial
after trial, homosexual soldiers have proven to be just as
effective fighting men and women as any heterosexual.
Consequently, by excluding such men and women, we are in effect
disrupting the efficiency of the military, disrupting the defense
of our country, and disrupting our own sense of safety.