Some military types together penned an op-ed in the Washington Post arguing against gays in the military. Some of their arguments are manifestly absurd–like this one:
And the damage would not stop there. Legislation introduced to repeal Section 654 (H.R. 1283) would impose on commanders a radical policy that mandates "nondiscrimination" against "homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived." Mandatory training classes and judicial proceedings would consume valuable time defining that language. Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.
We don't need a study commission to know that tensions are inevitable in conditions offering little or no privacy, increasing the stress of daily military life. "Zero tolerance" of dissent would become official intolerance of anyone who disagrees with this policy, forcing additional thousands to leave the service by denying them promotions or punishing them in other ways. Many more will be dissuaded from ever enlisting. There is no compelling national security reason for running these risks to our armed forces. Discharges for homosexual conduct have been few compared with separations for other reasons, such as pregnancy/family hardship or weight-standard violations. There are better ways to remedy shortages in some military specialties than imposing social policies that would escalate losses of experienced personnel who are not easily replaced.
"Nondiscrimation" (in quotes!) sounds odd, to say the least, in the context of an argument arguing for systematic and legalized discrimination against homosexuals. Aside from its grade C sophistry, this argument repeats the claim uttered by many that their civil rights would be infringed upon if homosexual marriages are legally recognized–a claim made in a recent commercial against gay marriage. See here for entertaining commentary on that particular advertisement.
On the other merits of the piece, the authors argue many–too many–would leave the military (in a time when we need them all). The primary cause would seem to be the "forced intimacy" required by military life:
Section 654 recognizes that the military is a "specialized society" that is "fundamentally different from civilian life." It requires a unique code of personal conduct and demands "extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense." The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often "characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy."
Not having been in the military, I can't really attest to that (anyone?). But one can easily imagine it. What might be a counter example to this–perhaps the only comprehensible worry on behalf of those afraid of homosexuals, at least the only one the authors mention–might be some other military which allows gays to serve openly. And indeed there is one, or two or more. The authors write:
Some suggest that the United States must emulate Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada, which have incorporated homosexuals into their forces. But none of these countries has the institutional culture or worldwide responsibilities of our military. America's armed forces are models for our allies' militaries and the envy of our adversaries — not the other way around.
They might have just added: those countries, however, serve red herring, a nutritionally deficient form of sustenance, in their MREs. The question is whether allowing gays in the military–especially in Canada, a country very much like ours, with troops committed overseas in various operations–has affected military service in Canada. Did mass amounts of people leave the military? The fact that our military might be the envy of our adversaries is immaterial and irrelevant–unless, of course, they "envy" it's not gayness.
It might be informative to pull up the texts from the early ’50’s and on when mandatory racial integration was imposed by Truman and Eisenhour. Even by 1975, when I enlisted, we went through mandatory racial sensitivity classes.
And by the bye, one of the guys in my unit in Germany was gay. Everyone of us EM’s knew about it (I can’t speak for the higher ups). Nobody had any particular issue with it, and its not like he had paroxisms of uncontrollable lust in the toilets.
They also ignore that Britain, France, Germany and Israel which in addition allow openly gay people to serve. Hell you can march in a gay pride parade in Britain in your uniform now. But I guess the coalition of the unwilling and Britain don’t really do any fighting.
Of course there were no mass exoduses from the military when other nations changed their policies, and there is no evidence of lower morale or lack of unit cohesion.
Nathaniel Frank’s recent book lays out what seems to be a devastating case against all of the desperate gasps we will hear over the next few years to preserve the ban on gays in the military.
Well, it seems that the authors of the article are just going over the same arguments present in the existing law.
Here’s how the existing law defines a homosexual person:
The term “homosexual” means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms “gay” and “lesbian”.
To your point, Gary, I guess the guy in your unit, by this definition will be not be considered homosexual.
BN, law doesn’t make arguments.
You’re right John.
This law was based on some findings:
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society. ”
“(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy. ”
“(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service. ”
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
This is from the article:
“Section 654 recognizes that the military is a “specialized society” that is “fundamentally different from civilian life.” It requires a unique code of personal conduct and demands “extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.” The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often “characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.”
“Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in the military”
It seems to me that the authors are just trying to reinforce the “findings” using surveys and personal stories.
Section 654 recognizes that the military is a “specialized society” that is “fundamentally different from civilian life.” It requires a unique code of personal conduct and demands “extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.” The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often “characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.”
There’s also a sort of beautiful incoherence in this argument.
1. The military requires extraordinary sacrifices.
2. Lack of privacy is typically one of those sacrifices.
3. Soldiers should not be forced to sacrifice their desire for privacy from homosexuals.
One of these things has to give.
And, I think BN is right that the law does give an attempt at an explanation for its discrimination. Since government discrimination is permissible when there is a compelling need, the law attempts to forestall the objection to what is otherwise an obvious form on morally obnoxious discrimination by appealing to a series of spurious claims about compelling need to discriminate against homosexuals for the sake of national defense. It is then functionally an argument.
They may be doing that BN, but, as I think I argued, they are doing so very badly. Colin and Gary then suggests out that they are doing so in the face of facts.
As far as the law not making arguments, I will temporarily or perhaps permanently walk back on that one (the SCOTUS makes arguments, which then become laws, so is it the arguments which are laws? or are those not laws but descriptive guides for how to interpret the law?). Anyway, seems in this case the policy is “described” so that one can “conclude” what can and can’t be done. In a sense that’s descriptive, in a sense, I guess, it’s not–which would make me wrong, in a sense.
BN,
I’m pretty sure the law would have included the guy I knew, even though he was not making extravagant overtures to the people around him.
Julian Bream does not cease being a guitar player because he is sleeping or cooking dinner. (One might appeal to Aristotle here, on a state vs. an activity.)
Not everyday one gets to reference the sleeping grammarian.
Good point, Gary.
I guess I just found the language for the law was really weird:” person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts”.
They make it sound like a person who can’t control himself/herself.
… or it might be my imagination
bottom line … I find the wording there really weird.
BN I think it’s obvious they mean a person who gets it on or would like to get it on with persons of the same sex (regardless of whether that person is a male or a female). I don’t get your confusion.
John, it’s nothing … it’s probably me. I just think the definition is a little derogatory.
Given the context, I woudn’t be surprised.
When I served, I just kind of figured there were homosexuals in my unit. I mean it’s only reasonable to assume, IMO. It didn’t really matter to me, and we all joked around about teh geigh, probably in ways that could have offended any homosexuals present, but there was rarely any hostility over these types of matters. I’m not sure what would happen if a guy were to be “out,” but I do know three or four guys that had very, um, nontraditional sex lives. They shared these openly with us (not a lot of secrets in a grunt unit), and they weren’t ostracized. Maybe if it were homosexuality, things might have been different, but at that point we’re just ruminating on counterfactuals. I can say that for the most part, there is far more tolerance at the lower enlisted levels (SSGT and below) for a wide variety of behaviors, sexual and otherwise, than there is at the upper enlisted and especially at the high-ranking officer level. The military, in many ways, is classed in a very similar way to American society.