Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:29:19 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Response to JSS post of 1/27 on "Homosexuals in the Military" ...

Date: 27 Jan 1993 01:44:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Jay Steven Sultan <sult%MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Subject: Homosexuals in the Military

First, to address quickly the last paragraph in this post first (I'll
come back to it), I cannot recall being part of a "hate jay cabal" AT
ANY TIME! Yes, I have the nerve and temerity to disagree, and have
suggested that often Jay attempts to prevail by assertion rather than
proof. However, I do not "hate" Jay, or Missy, or Robert, or Travis,
or any other conservative on this list. I DO reserve the RIGHT (under
the 1st Amendment) that I CAN say what I feel, believe, and think as
well as anyone else in this forum. I do not like ad hominem attacks,
have spoken often against such behaviors in this forum and others,
and I believe Jay's "threat" to KAT, myself and others constitutes a
presumption of "guilt" that I would or do such things that is
incorrect.

>Well, I tried to stay quiet, but so many of you have it wrong, I am
>forced to speak out.

Well, "wrong" via your set of beliefs, "wrong" by assertion, but not
necessarily by proof.

>Moral arguments about rights and equality are wholly irrelevant. The
>simple truth is that public opinion must precede, not follow, any
>action.  Let me explain why.

If you were right, and I do not believe that you are, "racism" and
"sexism" would still be permissable and acceptable in this society.
When Truman desegregated the armed forces in 1948, BY EXECUTIVE
ORDER, segregation and Jim Crow WERE the law of the land. "Public
opinion" until the late 1960s was pro-segregationist, yet that
minority of us who believed blacks should not be second class
citizens did prevail after a bitter fight against public opinion that
cost several folks of both races their lives. I suggest men like
Gingrich who believe Congress MUST have a voice in a policy change
like this fail to be aware of fairly recent history. (See McCulloch's
_Truman for more on the desegregation order).

>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.

Well, I agree in part, but disagree to this degree. "Study after
study" is NOT citation of evidence. Some soldiers, my father and
step-father among them, believed they were fighting FOR country, FOR
their "buddies," (and to stay alive) and AGAINST the Japanese, who
both regarded as "evil" in their wartime conduct.

>Here is my central point.  As long as public attitudes toward
>homosexuality remain what they are today, those attitudes will ensure
>a catastrophic failure of any attempt to formally introduce
>homosexuals.  When homosexuals 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.

I said I felt introduction of "overt" gays should be a gradualist
behavior, and progress along lines I outlined the other day - civil
rights protection for this behavior on the civil front (and calling
things "perverse" is NOT a way to deal with the issue - any more than
saying "blacks are inferior" or "women are weaker" are reasonable
arguments to deny blacks and women their rights).

>You see, if homosexual behavior and lifestyles 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 open homosexuality in the
>military can only follow a major change of attitudes by those in the
>military.  It cannot precede it.

That is the problem of those who hold hostile attitudes, not of gays
per se. Blaming "the victim," or saying because wrong-headed
attitudes "exist" that such justifies them. Under the mindset you
describe, NO change would ever be possible because almost ALL change
is resisted by institutions who see change as threatening to the way
things are. The status quo is almost always more desirable than
change.

President Clinton, whose military experience is well know(n),
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.

"Overwhelming majority of experts?" "Disastrous?" More assertions
without proof. Clinton HAS solicted the "advice" of the top command
structure AND Congress, which fulfills what he "promised during the
campaign." Regardless of how you feel, Clinton IS the Commander of
Chief, and the President, and he can listen to advice, and still end
up doing things contrary to the advice he receives. The President is
the final arbiter, it seems to me. I do not believe he is being
"contempuous(ly) defiant" of anyone. He doesn't agree with a
significant number of folks, that I would agree with. That's his
perogative as President.

>I think a major point to be considered is the rights of the
>heterosexuals, 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.

No one is "forced to leave the military" by this decision. XYZ folks
MAY leave the military - THEIR perogative - in disagreement with
policy. Many gays have served in units, or so a great of anecdotal
"evidence" has said (I do not know how true or false any of this
"evidence" is), without difficulty, or so it would seem. ALL
behaviors or states of beingness (practice of religion, ethnicity,
gender and race) potentially pose a problem of arousing folk's ire.
ALL members of the military face a "lack of privacy," and the
military harbors criminals, sadists, and other "deviant" types that
people without privacy "suffer" also. (I'm not sure that, if, as
Clinton stated today, a code is offered that STRICTLY regulates
in-the-ranks sexual behavior, that there's a problem - I could be
wrong).

>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 Village People sings a new recruitment song for
>the military, it will act as a magnet for homosexuals seeking
>safe-haven, a place where they can be open without fear of violence
>or disapproval, and they know they will find other homosexuals.  Is
>this the reason we want people to enlist?

This, to me, is a specious argument. No one has intimated that The
Village People will EVER be asked to make a recruiting message - this
would appear a "red herring." I do not believe anyone is saying that
"liberalizing" the standard about who gets recruited would lower
standards, which as I recall has gotten more stringent in recent
years. If these men and women can meet these requirements, then their
sexual preference, like their religion, whether they smoke or not,
are irrelevant. We want people to enlist who meet military
requirements, and that's all that needs to be involved as a criteria.
If your line of reasoning held, anyone "deviant" from a mythical norm
would be not fit for military duty.

>Another tactic of the homosexual movement is to denounce all
>opposition to Clinton's plan as homophobia and fear.  It is not
>possible for Sam Nunn, Colin Powell, and all the joint chiefs to be
>homophobic.  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 homophobic, yet
>it was clear enough to him to initiate the ban.

SOME homosexuals HAVE made the assertion that "homophobia and fear"
are behind the resistance to allowing gays into military, and
mainstream, life. It IS possible that Carter, Nunn, Powell and the
Joint Chiefs are "homophobic;" two conservative southerners, and top
military commanders of some age could well be homophobic. Carter's
experience versus Clinton's are irrelavant; we have a President
without military experience, that IS the fact, lamenting that will
not change the fact that he is the guy who will decide what to do.

>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.

I agree with you. So, a strict code of conduct for ANY sexual
behavior has to be promulgated, and enforced, to ensure "uniform
behavior." Booting out offenders of either persuasion who violate the
code is then "equally applied."

>The final argument mounted is that our European brethren all allow
>homosexuals 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 homosexuals
>unacceptable in the regular forces.  They tolerate homosexuals in the
>reserve, which is essentially mandatory for all men of fighting age.
>In other words, Israel tried it and abandoned the policy, allowing
>homosexuals in the trivial sense that all men of Israel are in the
>military.

Assertion. I'd like to see some numbers to back it up.

>Germany also adopted a broad plan like what President Clinton is
>considering.  They also found it unworkable, and now formalize
>discrimination against homosexuals, 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 homosexuals, 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 homosexuals than does America, yet it is not
>working there.

Again, assertion without substantiation. Where do you get this
information from?

>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.

If you were right, and I suggest you are not, religion is also a
"behavior," and it IS protected by Title VII, as I recall, and I
believe by a series of Civil Rights laws. I do not believe there is
agreement that your statement that "sexual preference is not a
characteristic;" in fact, it would appear that there is wide
diagreement about this.

>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.

I doubt that whatever occurs that Clinton would "destroy the
military." Yes, there might be initial resistance. But, most soldiers
of my acquaintance follow orders and rules to a great degree, and
in a relatively short time, this would just be another rule to
accept and adhere to. If your three relatives quit, again it is their
perogative to do so. I do not believe the long term effectiveness of
the military would be affected by a 5-10% minority of gays. They HAVE
shown they CAN fight, and that's the bottom line. Morale will be
affected to the degree that "homophobes" and those opposed to the
change allow to be affected. Smart officers would ensure this didn't
occur, and we have many officers who are solid and good military men
who would NOT quit to ensure that occurring. Perhaps your relatives
have a problem? (Not an attack, just a question, don't get het up!)

>Two years ago, this was the topic of my f(i)rst post to this list.
>Go figure.

Still beating a dead horse, are we?

>I will be unable to read every post this list generates (~120/day).
>Those wishing to respond (or talk about me behind my back, being sure
>I hear it), please put the word homosexuals or "Jay" or "Sultan" in
>the message title.

If I have something to say to or about you, I'm quite public about
it, always have been.

>I would like to take a new approach, posting as seldomly as
>possibile.  Those of you who may rejoice a little less than others at
>my return (KAT, VAL, and any other three lettered member of the 'hate
>jay early' crowd) can facilitate this by not provoking me.  You have
>been warned!!!!

As I said above, this is an unwarrented attack. I am NOT real pleased
to see your return, I will not be hypocritical and say this really
excites me. I find you contentious, often arguing without proof, too
willing to engage in personal attacks, and not very reasonable about
a wide variety of issues. I accept you ARE here, I do NOT "hate" you,
and if I "provoke" you, that's your problem, not mine. I'll "warn"
you, do not attack me without foundation either. You be reasonable
and polite, which I try hard to do with you despite a great deal of
provocation from you, and I'll grant you the same courtesy. Attack me
instead of what I say, and you "have been warned!!!"

(NOTE: Nowhere in this post have I said anything more than what I
believe the truth to be, and only in the face of a "threat" have I
offered a personal remark, which I tried to keep as polite as
possible, given the deliberate provocation offered in your last
paragraph).

>Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
>University of Chicago

(Quote deleted)

VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU