From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Homosexuals in the Military
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:05:08 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

Jay,
	I have taken the liberty to reword your email.  Please let me
	know if the logic still applies.  By the way, the argument as
	I have changed it was rampent back in 1948 with the same reasons.
	
							Andrew MacRae
							
ps: The ban was put into effect some fifty years ago (at least according
    the military representative on M/L a couple of nights ago) to counter
    the spread of STDs.  Carter was not the one who imposed it.
							
	
In article <CMM.0.90.4.728120666.sult@quads.uchicago.edu>,  Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU> DID NOT WRITE:

 > Study after study has examined the amazing fact that men are
 > willing to fight and die in battle.  They are unanimous in their
 > opinion.  Soldiers do not fight for their flag, their country, their
 > president, or the cause of war.  They fight and die for their
 > comrades, their buddies, the other members of their unit.  The
 > morale, the unit cohesiveness is the primary and paramount
 > objective.
  
 > Here is my central point.  As long as public attitudes toward
 > race remain what they are today, those attitudes will
 > ensure a catastrophic failure of any attempt to formally introduce
 > blacks.  When blacks openly enter a unit, the existing
 > prejudices of the members of the unit will prevail, resulting in
 > violence or a wide range of reactions, all of which will prevent the
 > unit from performing its very specialized function.
 > 
 > You see, if black color of skin were not so
 > opposed by the vast majority of the members of the military, these
 > objections would be without merit and discrimination would be
 > wrong-headed.  But, and this is the important thing, these
 > prejudices and fears exist, and cannot be changed by executive
 > order or an act of congress.  The successful introduction of
 > blacks in the military can only follow a major change of
 > attitudes by those in the military.  It cannot precede it.
 > 
 > President Clinton, whose military experience is well know,
 > promised during the campaign to follow the advice of experts on
 > the military, and area of admitted inexperience.  It is most
 > unfortunate that Clinton has chosen to break this promise.  As you
 > know, the overwhelming majority of experts agree that the
 > proposal to lift the ban is disastrous.  With only days into office,
 > Clinton has chosen to take this drastic step in contemptuous
 > defiance of the experts in both parties and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
 > 
 > I think a major point to be considered is the rights of the
 > whites, the often ignored rights of the majority to privacy.
 > As San Nunn has said, the military is unlike any other occupation.
 > There is no privacy from other soldiers.  There is no personal
 > space.  Living in the barracks, in the field, in the ship berth,
 > inside a tank all force soldiers and sailors together, physically and
 > emotionally.  It is simply impossible to apply the kinds of privacy
 > standards the vast majority of us, including President Clinton, are
 > familiar with.  Further, there is another right to be considered -
 > the rights of Catholics and other religious groups who would be
 > forced to leave the military.
 > 
 > Lifting the ban will transform the U.S. military, the best military
 > known to the history of man, into a latter analogy of the YMCA.
 > When the music group The Temptations sings a new recruitment
 > song for the military, it will act as a magnet for blacks
 > seeking safe-haven, a place where they can be open without fear
 > of violence or disapproval, and they know they will find other
 > blacks.  Is this the reason we want people to enlist?
 > 
 > Another tactic of the civil rights movement is to denounce all
 > opposition to Clinton's plan as racist and fear.  It is not
 > possible for Sam Nunn, Colin Powell, and all the joint chiefs to be
 > racist.  They make clear, as I am attempting to do, that the
 > problems with lifting the ban are not personal, but substantive.  It
 > should be remembered that this policy was begun with President
 > Carter, who was not only a Democrat, but who served his country
 > with distinction through his navy experience, experience which is
 > sorely lacking in our new president.  Certainly Carter is no
 > racist, yet it was clear enough to him to initiate the ban.

[a paragraph that cannot be altered without losing all logic]
 > Another myth being argued is that a ban on activity will suffice.
 > It is not the orientation that matters, some argue.  All we need is
 > to ban homosexual activity the way we ban heterosexual activity.
 > The problem is that heterosexual activity is rampant within the
 > military.  From the countless observations of friends and family in
 > the military, heterosexual activity occurs all the time, at all levels
 > of the military.  The idea that we can introduce homosexuals and
 > not introduce homosexual acts into the military is fallacious.
 > 
 > The final argument mounted is that our European brethren all
 > allow blacks in their militaries.  While some of us tire of
 > constant comparison of the apples and oranges which are the
 > United States and the rest of the world, a careful examination of
 > the results of the european militaries is in order.  Israel found the
 > blacks unacceptable in the regular forces.  They tolerate
 > blacks in the reserve, which is essentially mandatory for all
 > men of fighting age.  In other words, Israel tried it and abandoned
 > the policy, allowing blacks in the trivial sense that all men
 > of Israel are in the military.
 > 
 > Germany also adopted a broad plan like what President Clinton is
 > considering.  They also found it unworkable, and now formalize
 > discrimination against blacks, preventing them from being
 > promoted, obtaining security clearance, or allowed in certain
 > combat units.  The Dutch army has also tried it.  There is constant
 > hostility against blacks, a great deal of violence and
 > frustration, and they seem ready to reverse the policy.  It should
 > be strongly noted that all of these countries have vastly more
 > liberal public opinions about blacks than does America, yet
 > it is not working there.

[ditto]
 > This entire argument does not examine another important
 > consideration - that sexual preference is not a characteristic, like
 > other Title VII classes.  Expanding civil rights to behavior, not
 > characteristic, is a dangerous precedent.
 > 
 > Why is it a bad idea?  I have three members of my immediate
 > family who are currently active members of the military.  They all
 > plan to get out if the ban is lifted.  With them go the experience,
 > the expertise, and the morale of the military.  If the function of the
 > military is to experiment with new social ideas, perhaps the plan
 > is sensible.  But if the function of the military is to use force when
 > necessary to protect American interests, then Mr. Clinton may
 > need to rely upon the military and find it rendered inoperative.
 > With the stroke of a pen, Clinton may do what the power of the
 > Soviet army could not: destroy the American military.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU