Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:44:26 CST
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Homosexuals in the Military

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

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.

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
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.

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.

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
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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.


--

Two years ago, this was the topic of my forst post to this list.  Go figure.

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.

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!!!!


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

"As originally written, the Constitution was a flawwed document.  I have
fixed it."                      - Justice Thurgood Marshal, 1909 - 1993
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU