First U.S. Military Service Member to Be Wounded in Iraq War Comes Out, Urges Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_52123.shtml)
Today, the first U.S. military personnel wounded in the Iraq war, retired Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, came out as a gay man. The Human Rights Campaign announced that Alva will serve as a national spokesperson in an effort to repeal the U.S. military's discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
On March 21, 2003, Alva was in charge of 11 Marines in a supply unit in Iraq when he stepped on a landmine, losing his right leg. Alva spent months of rehabilitation at Walter Reed Army Hospital where he was visited by President Bush, First Lady Laura Bush and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He was awarded a Purple Heart for his service and received a medical discharge from the military.
Regarding the military's attitude about gays there is an issue that I have found difficult to resolve. When it comes to close quarters in public venues our society separates people by gender. Men and women have separate bathrooms & locker rooms. In the military they are given separate sleeping quarters too.
Part of this is due to physical differences but I feel part is due to sexual attraction. Not everyone wants to be in a situation that exposes "sensitive areas" of the body to someone that might get sexually aroused by seeing that. So by putting a gay male in a barrack with a straight male, the straight male might feel a little uneasy about changing or showering in the presence of a gay male. This is no different than a woman feeling the same way in the presence of a man. All intentions aside, if a person feels vulnerable, uncomfortable or embarrassed in that type of situation they shouldn't be forced into it.
In the military, all men are put in the same barracks regardless of sexual orientation as are all women. I'm sure someone somewhere doesn't want to put military personnel in situations that will encourage sexual activity. A woman on a ship is like a sitting duck in a small pond and I've read stories where the military goes to great lengths to separate the women from the men but many women still leave the ship pregnant. This is somewhat of an embarrassment to the military. How would it be if someone made a claim of same gender sexual harassment or worse contracting AIDS while serving in the military?
So what do you do? If you put all gay men together you would be encouraging this. If you put a gay man in the women's barracks the women would surely complain. The military can't put each gay man or lesbian woman in a separate living quarter. It would be cost prohibitive and may be construed as discriminatory. What do you do?
I think that's why the military has their don't ask don't tell policy. That way they don't have to be responsible for addressing this sticky situation.
Julie
Julie, I don't believe that they have really thought through this that far. It is a very logical problem and one that is very real. Wouldn't it be easy for them to list this as a problem if they could actually acknowledge gay people in the first place? They haven't gotten beyond the queer thing yet.
FWIW, I've wondered about this very issue.
Cindi
This is an intersting place to post a first message, but then again... Anywho, to address the question raised. As a disclaimer and for the interest of public disclosure, I will note beforehand that I am a homosexual male.
There is currently not enough study information available to state more than a likely answer. Specifically, this is due to:
1. The continuing dispite over whether social cohesion or task based cohesion, although most literature lends support to the notion of tasked based cohesion wherein the level of comfort amongst the soldiers in a unit would be irrelevant (MacCoun, Kier, and Belkin. 2006).
2. There has simply not been a great deal of in depth analysis on the effect of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the millitary (Belkin. 2003).
With that said, however, there are currently 25 nations1 that allow homosexuals to serve openly in their millitaries, including 20 of the 25 NATO members. Evidence from these nations could serve as an inexact indicator of what the effects of removing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy could be, however, a reasonable amount of doubt should be maintained owing to differences in the cultural context and millitary situations of the nations involved, especially in comparison to the United States.
In an attempt to control for those factors,the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, chose to explroe four very specific cases, Australia, Canada, Britain, and Israel. These specific four were chosen because Australia, Canada, and Brittain share a very similar cultural tradition to the United States and Israel was included because it is generally acknowledged as the single most combat tested military force on the face of the earth. Additionally, it should be noted that Australia, Canada, and Israel all allowed gays to openly serve in the millitary by the year 1993 allowing at least a decade of evidence to be accumulated as well as for normalization to occur. A brief summary of the results is as follows:
Not a single person interviewed (104 including persons from both sides of the issue) or document reviewed (622) claimed that military performance, readiness, cohesion, recruiting, retention or rate of sexually transmitted diseases was affected in any way. On the contrary, those interviewed described the actual aftermath as being a complete non-event. No one interviewed believed homosexuality to be in important issue within the armed forces and no document reviewed provided any evidence to suggest that homosexuality was a point of contention within the studied armed forces.
To explain this, military leaders pointed to the emphasis on equal standards and an emphasis on conduct for all service members regardless of sexual orientation or personal beliefs about homosexual orientation. In all nations where homosexuals are permitted to serve in the millitary, the leadership issued regulations that hold homosexual and heterosexual service members to the same standards. None of the four militaries specifically under study attempt to force service members to accept homosexuality, abuse an harassment are banned (in both directions). The evidence suggests that this emphasis on professionalism and the work people do is adequate to maintain millitary effectiveness and cohesion
It should also be noted, that in all four nations under question there was not and has not been any mass "coming out" of homosexual soldiers. In all nations under question, only a very small minority of soldiers are openly homosexual, official estimates being in the range of 3-4% of the total armed forces. Unofficially, there is support for the idea that there are many more homosexuals in the millitaries of the respective nations who choose not to reveal their orientations, or choose to do so only informally to selected members of their unit.
This was only the result of a brief internet search for information but I think some of the implications intended are clear. Personally, I think the best course of option would be to adopt a similar stance to that of Brittain and Israel. Allow homosexuals to serve openly, but apply equal standards and an emphasis of conduct for everyone that stresses professionalism. I also tend to agree with the supposition that simply because the policy is lifted, there will NOT be a mass coming out of soldiers in the US millitary. Quite simply, even though I can't speak for all gay men I think it's safe to say that the majority of those who would volunteer for millitary service are likely to have a similar oppinion, a job is a job and the details of one's sex life, including orientation, are not information that is generally necessary for the public to know, and thefore, one isn't going to wear a flashing neon sign that says "->-bleeped-<-got" simply because one can.
Sources:
http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/Publications/2003_BelkinInParameters.pdf (http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/Publications/2003_BelkinInParameters.pdf)
http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/Publications/2006_0925-KierMacCounBelkin.pdf (http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/Publications/2006_0925-KierMacCounBelkin.pdf)
Notes:
1: The countries allowing gay service members are:
Argentina Australia Austria The Bahamas Belgium Bulgaria Canada Colombia Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Lithuania Luxembourg The Netherlands New Zealand Norway Peru Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand United Kingdom
Additionally Russia allows "well adjusted homosexuals" to serve, although the precise meaning of that term is unclear.
Don't Ask Don't Tell was about preventing witch hunts. It was a simple deal -- You shut up about your sexual orientation and keep it out of sight, and we'll keep the dogs at bay. Before that, anybody that appeared vulnerable could have the 'f*****' or 'l*****' label slapped on them and the harassers could then harass with impunity.
Don't Ask Don't Tell was a compromise, but it set clear boundaries. It even protected me, because there were those who were looking for victims that tried to turn me into a homosexual when I was not. Under Don't Ask Don't Tell, all they could do was make snide comments about me.
While in the military I worked for a lesbian (her status since confirmed by a t-girl friend who was in the same organization and also knew her) who, without saying a word but only with presentation, DARED people to call her a lesbian.
It really boils down to fear. Gays are painted as dangerous and predatorial. So are Transsexuals. As a matter of fact, many of the public who have misconceptions about homo- and transsexuality, view transsexuals as sort of extreme homosexuals.
If you fear something, kill it...
Karen