File Cabinet > Student Submissions > Gays in the Military
Home
Research Room, image link with pencil/eraserpencil image links to Reference Deskpencil image, links to Tutor's Mailboxpencil image, links to Search Writer's Complexpencil image, links to index of Writer's Complexpencil image, links to Writer's Complex Home page

Title: Gays in the Military
Assignment:

Final Project: The American Political System
Study Tutor's comments:

Your final project is an excellent example of public policy analysis. It is well written and displays a keen insight as to the operation of the American Political System. Within your presentation you identify the issue at hand, the players involved, their respective positions and the actions taken to date. Most impressive are the actions you have outlined which could be used to promote your political position. All in all, this is a superb job!
Area of Study:

SOCIAL SCIENCES
Paper

Gays In The Military
by Deirdre Dowd

In office less than two weeks, President Clinton has unleashed an issue that has catapulted him into the eye of a political storm. Clinton's plan to lift the ban on gays in the military has exploded in controversy. Clinton's plan faces formidable opposition within the administration and in Congress.

Originally, it was expected that Clinton would issue an executive order lifting the ban last week. But vocal opposition and threats from Congress to enact legislation establishing the ban as federal law have delayed definitive action by Clinton.

Clinton's position on the issue is clear. He believes an individual should not be excluded from military service based soled on his or her sexual orientation. He believes an individual's sexual conduct should be at issue not his or her sexual preference. Supporters of Clinton include Defense Secretary Les Aspin, House Speaker Thomas Folley and Republican Senator Alfonse D'amato.They feel that many of the arguments against lifting the ban are unfounded and are reminiscent of the arguments heard in 1948 when Truman ordered the integration of the military. Clinton has also received support from the Reverend Paul Sherry, President of the United Church of Christ and Rabbi Alexander Schindler, President of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Barry Goldwater also voiced his support for the president in a press conference at Arizona University. And, of course, Clinton has the support of the gay communiuty.

But is that enough in the face of the strident oppositon? Colin Powell and the other Joint Chiefs of Staff all favor keeping the ban in place. There is also powerful opposition for Clinton's plan in Congress. Those against lifting the ban include Senate Republican leader Bob Dole and Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Democrat Sam Nunn. The aruments for keeping the ban are much more complex than those for lifting the ban. They range from morale problems and an undermining of teamwork to fear of violent reprisals against gay members of the military.

Although the policy is an administrative issue, the events of the last week show that it is destined to be addressed at the legislative level. The strong bipartisan support for the ban in Congress has raised the possibility of legislating the ban. Sen Bob Dole suggested the Republican Party will introduce a bill upholding the ban and attatch it to the Family and Medical Leave Act that Democrats want passed and Clinton wants to sign. Clearly, the president has a battle on his hands.

In order to avoid a full scale confrontation with Congress, Clinton has worked out a compromise with the assistance of Sen. Sam Nunn. Clinton agreed to wait six months before signing an executive order formally lifting the ban. In the interim, Clinton has directed the Pentagon to stop asking recruits their sexual preference and stop discharging members based soled on their sexual preference. The six month period is ostensibly to allow the administration and Congress to work together to develop guidelines to implement the policy. However there is no guarantee that Congress won't still try to write the ban into federal law.

There is another arena where this issue is being played out in the courts. Clinton has used this as another reason why he feels his administration needs to act on the issue now. He feels if he doesn't, the courts may end up deciding the issue. Recently, (1/28/93) a federal judge ruled that the ban on gays in the military bases on sexual orientation violates the Constitution. Although the decision will be appealed, and the ban has been upheld in twelve previous cases, that could change. So, we also have the issue being addressed at the judicial level.

While their has been reaction from the public, the publicity surrounding the issue is bound to elicit a stronger response. National polls show the public is almost split on the issue. However, lawmakers report most of the calls, letters and telegrams they have received have been in support of the ban. But as the debate continues, more voices in favor of lifting the ban may be heard. This would surely change the minds of our elected officials.

Before I discuss what I can do to involve myself in the process, let me state where I stand on the issue. I support lifting the ban. I don't believe individuals should be precluded from serving their country in the military simply because they are homosexual. While I acknowledge the concerns raised by those opposed to lifting the ban, I feel their concerns should be addressed in the context of how to implement the policy

Let's look at some of the arguments for keeping the ban. The military life often compels personnel to live and work in close quarters with little privacy. There is fear that sexual tension would abound if gays were known to be among personnel in these situations. This tension and anxiety would be detrimental to morale and teamwork. True. At first, maybe. But this was the same argument used to keep blacks segregated. Why would there be a morale problem? Because they don't like gays or they're afraid of them? This problem needs to be addressed through education and discipline. Blacks and woman have overcome similiar hurdles, and homosexuals will too.

Another argument is that medical resources will be strained by homosexuals who have sexually transmitted diseases. Sexually transmitted diseases have always been a problem among heterosexuals so this must be a reference to AIDS. All military personnel are subject to testing for the HIV virus every six months so policy is already in place to address that issue. As incidence of AIDS continues to rise among the heterosexual population, this concern should be addressed through education not discrimination.

We have heard the argument that discrimination is acceptable in the military (as in age) therefore it is okay to continue a policy of discrimination against gays. But discrimination is only acceptable if based on legitimate concerns for national security. No one--not even the opposition--denies that gays have served and are serving in the military with honor and courage. If a homosexual recruit outperforms a heterosexual recruit physically and academically, is it not in the nation's best interest to allow him or her to serve?

A legitimate yet unacceptable concern is the fear of violent reprisals against gay members by non-gay members of the military. Sadly, these types of incidents occur sometimes on just the suspicion of homosexuality. However, this is a matter of discipline and obedience that needs to be addressed throughout the military. Homophobia is a serious problem in the military as is sexism and both should be addressed at the highest levels of the Pentagon. The military must have control over the conduct of its members. That is why along with lifting the ban and developing regulations to implement the new policy there is a call to draw up a strict code of conduct. In the wake of the Tailhook scandal it appears that the sexual conduct of all personnel needs to be reviewed.

An empty argument put forth by Rep. Joe Barton (R_Texas) on a recent appearance on the Phil Donahue show is that since the U.S. military works so well that the current policy should not be changed. Again we hear echoes of 1948 and the integration of blacks in the military. Gen Powell, in support of the ban, says that it cannot be compared to the desegregation order of 1948 because homosexuality is not a benign skin trait like race. Before desegregation there were reasons for keeping blacks segregated. Reasons like they are not as intelligent as whites and were lazy. Powell is insinuating that homosexuals possess basic character flaws because they are gay much the way blacks were viewed.

What can I do to directly involve myself in this process taking place miles away on Capitol Hill.? For starters, I can place some phone calls to my representatives in Congress. Currently, it is reported that most calls received have been in support of the ban. Probably because people who are not directly affected by it or are not homophobic have not felt an urgent need to act. I think a lot of people think gays should be allowed to serve but they may not be as passionate about the issue as people who feel homosexuality is morally wrong and view gays as deviants. I could also persuade friends and family to make calls in support of President Clinton.

A more effective method of making my voice heard would be to start a petition drive. Reach out to people who are not moved to act on their own. But I wonder what kind of reaction I would get in my blue-collar, middle-class neighborhood. I would probably fare better than my husband would. When a man speaks out for gay rights he is often assumed to be gay, and in our society that can have a negative impact on ones life personally and professionally. Even as a woman I would be subject to hostility and suspicion.

Perhaps a better way for me to involve myself would be to organize: involve others like myself. We could call ourselves Heterosexuals for Homosexuals or something to that effect. It would help me overcome the obstacle of people being afraid to associate themselves with "some radical gay group." It would send a powerful message if "normal", average citizens united to say: We are not gay but we support gay rights. In the same way that white support helped in the struggle for black civil rights, non-gay support would lend respectability and credibility to this issue. As funding would be a problem, I would be looking at a grass roots organization. Basically organizing at the local level and undertaking such activities as petition drives and letter writing campaigns.

Over the next six months, gay rights groups are sure to organize themselves and push to lift the ban. But as gays are not a particularly powerful group, it may take the efforts of other groups to influence Congress. Another possibility would be to persuade existing organizations, such as NOW, to lobby on behalf of lifting the ban.

While I support President Clinton's plan to lift the ban, I think the six month compromise is a good idea. There are issues that need to be addressed in implementing the policy. Also the military needs to begin educating its members so as to eradicate the homophobia that exists within the organization. It is not an easy task. Despite the gains made by women and minorities in the military they still face battles. Sexism, for example, is still pervasive in the military. But the time has come to face and act on the issue.

Some who support the president feel the six month compromise will allow opponents time to organize. But it will also allow supporters time to organize. Also as the public hears the arguments for the ban they will see how hollow many of them are. Along with regulations to implement the new policy of allowing gays to serve, a strict code of conduct should be drawn up. This code should address all sexual conduct, not just homosexual conduct. This would no doubt help to strengthen the military and hence national security. It might be best to resolve the issue legislatively: write the lifting of the ban into federal law. If it is lifted by executive order, there are sure to be attempts to write the ban into law, which would lead to further challenges in the courts.

Bibliography
Empire State College Writer's Complex Home | Search | Index | The Write Way | Research Room | Essay Writing | Punctuation Points | Grammar Workout | Style Seminar | File Cabinet | Bulletin Board | Tutor's Mailbox | Reference Desk | Faculty Lounge | Seminar Rooms
MyESC