Gay Marriages in the Military - Case Study Example

Gay Marriages in the Military Topic Introduction: GAY MARRIAGES IN THE MILITARY With the changing times and trends, the world has become more tolerant and less shocked regarding same sex relationships and gay and lesbian marriages. Conservatives and moderates have a strikingly opposing stance towards gay relationships owing to their religious ideologies. They have always considered it against the will of God, and a biological impossibility. However, more liberal group of people always put this issue forward in terms of equality and non-discrimination. They actually publicized it to be treated as a case of human and civil rights and highlighted the fact that a person’s sexual preference is his personal matter and no one should interfere with it (A & Richards, 1998). In case of the military though, at first gay and lesbian marriage and adoption were considered stigma and a taboo which may even result in losing employment of the person who indulges in same sex affairs. But with time and passage of antidiscrimination laws, it is becoming a norm and people are having a rather favorable approach towards this issue. Citizens in general and women in particular, were more likely to favor gay marriage and adoption within the military than were men. Gay marriage support groups were campaigned mostly by Liberal and Democratic political parties and their followers, especially those who supported ENDA and military. ENDA stands for Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which is a statutory-legislation presented by the U.S Congress. This act outlawed and restricted discrimination and non-employment on the basis of sexual orientation, it especially applies to the religious fanatics who deprive gays of their fundamental employment rights. On the other hand, the Conservatives and Republican groups antagonized this issue and were homophobic towards gay relationships. (Zimmerman & Wilcox, 2007). The change in attitude of military towards gay and lesbian alliances, arise from the very fact that the hectic army lifestyle, demands and objectives of warfare actually support their Homosexual identity. Sexual orientation is considered no more a measure of a service man’s merit and performance. Homosexuals are as good soldiers as heterosexuals, which is the advent of a rights based military service in which gay rights are identified on an equal opportunity basis. Gay marriages in the military are no more a cause for exclusion; self identified gay couples used to hide their identities because of rejection and lack of constitutional support. But now-a-days it is a common practice within the military. Since All the American courts, under State, Federal and constitutional law have recognized the fact that, failure to recognize same sex marriages is not unconstitutional, which in turn bereft the same sex couple from legal insurance coverage, spousal rights under the law of wills , the immigration laws or the laws of benefits(A & Richards, 1998). . The feminist groups also advocate the human rights for gays and lesbians, such as right to work, freedom of speech and intimacy must be respected by all, and must be equal to heterosexuals. The attempts of dehumanization from sexual stereo-types were strongly opposed from the torch bearers of basic human rights. It is now a popular belief that same sex marriage is not an insult to the institution of marriage but a heightened sense of commitment and recognition of a marriage’s deeper moral values and every person’s equally fair right to embrace them. It is now realized by those who contest the traditional American constitution, and demand amendments regarding gay couples’s legal protection. The pro gay marriage groups argument that any discrimination on the basis of sexual identity, is as bad a discrimination as on the basis of race, gender and ethnicity and they demand equality of rights , and freedom from moral slavery. This was the very essence of the two most important movements in the history of man-kind the gay rights and feminism movement. The right of reason and love of liberty is indeed, the American dream and ideology (A & Richards, 1 2) The Survey Interview compilations: Gay- rights, which includes rights to marriage and adoption, is a movement that changed the face of this World forever, more so within the military it has always been a focus of public debate. As a part of my research on this topic, I have interviewed people from all walks of life, to gain more insight into this issue of national importance. Majority of people were against homosexuality and thought it was out-rightly wrong, however, there were some liberal approaches as well, who thought there’s no harm in the existence of gay and lesbian marriages as it is their choice and they should not be judged or biased upon their sexual orientation. The ratio of people against homosexuality as compared to in favor was 60-40%. Some people feared catching disease while having a working relationship with gays, lesbians and bisexuals which is due to their lack of information on this issue. Nevertheless, there were some people who gave a conditional point of view, by being comfortable with the existence of homosexual marriages as long as they do not disrespect their religious values, or deface the boundaries of the sacred institution of marriage which is a traditional union between a man and a woman (Defense, 2012). Although, there were some who were at peace with the legislations in favor of this issue but had reservations and dislike towards depiction of Homosexuality in a positive way, in the movies and other forms of media, they were of the opinion that it is a negative influence upon their children and inspiring them to go against the will of God. In a survey conducted on Armed forces in America 47.5 % of the Army Combat personnel and 57.5 % of the Marine Combat personnel which were surveyed, believed that having a gay member in their team, negatively affects their work performance and morale (Zimmerman & Wilcox, 2007). I have also interviewed a couple of lawyers, to get a legal perspective on this issue; I was enlightened that President Bill Clinton, in 1993 offered partial and compromised equality to the homosexuals serving in the Army (Defense, 2012), to have the right to serve and remain in office only if their sexual orientation was kept secret or was not reported throughout their serving time. This law was referred as DADT (don’t ask don’t tell), after this law was put to action plenty of army personnel were discharged from their service after their sexuality was revealed. This law is declared null and void by president Barack.H.Obama who has repealed it in 2010 (Defense, 2012). The president has identified military readiness to give the gay personnel the same benefits and support services, which the heterosexual personnel enjoy. The president’s repeal of DADT ended the discrimination of the army against gay personnel, and not only the army and political leadership were responsible for their health and welfare but, gays and their families were also entitled to equal, just and fair treatment despite their sexual orientation. Yet the Federal law known as the “Defense of Marriage act (DOMA),”prevents the military from giving the same benefits to the committed homosexual personnel, that are enjoyed by the heterosexual members of services and their spouses, these rights include equal access to pay and other support services (Defense, 2012). The advocates of gay rights debate that if the soldiers are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country, they must be given the freedom to commit to the people they love. The President being the commander-in-chief of the Armed forces does have the last word in this issue as he describes it as an issue of National Security, which leaves the army in quite an awkward position (Defense, 2012). In spite of showing their military readiness towards the issue, the armed forces have slightly altered the policy by giving the gay members equal rights and benefits, without extending support to their family members, which sparked another debate within the Military and the Congress at the same time. There seems no logic in ending unlawful discrimination against gay members of army service, and simultaneously ignoring the lawful support of their family members. There are discussions and debates within the politics and the army and hopefully this issue will take a good turn and the military will eventually recognize its duties and responsibilities towards their soldiers, sailors, marines and air-men and be equally just to their families and chosen spouses, and be willing and ready to accept the change in attitudes. The truth regarding an army man’s sexual orientation can easily be found by simply looking at the available records, and checking the spouse category, which is a matter of public knowledge (Defense, 2012). 3) THEORETICAL ANALYSIS Gay and Lesbian alliances are an order of the day and, are acceptable by today’s generation. At first, gay-rights movement was aggressively apposed but nevertheless, things have considerably changed in this front. Times are getting more and more liberal, and in turn more supportive towards the homosexuals. At this point in time, six states in the United States which include: Connecticut Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, issue marriage licenses to gay couples; whereas, Maryland permits but does not perform to such marriages. Many other states permit civil council unions or domestic unions that are almost equivalent to a marriage contract and provide certain State-level spousal rights (Defense, 2012). However, even if a same sex couple commits under marriage or civil-union, under the law of a State, that union is not recognized under Federal Law due to DOMA. This is the core reason the same-gender couples are not able to enjoy the same spousal rights and benefits that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy on a State level basis throughout the Nation. Similarly, the military’s definition of the word “dependant” is actually tied to the words “marriage” and “spouse” which further brings complications to the already controversial issue. The DOMA Act has been challenged and contested many a time in Federal courts, as gay couples are being denied state level spousal rights and benefits, they demand alterations to the definition of marriage between the States. But the Federal Government, in defense of DOMA persists that the act of marriage as a social contract has already been defined in the law of DOMA. DOMA is precise and certain which defines heterosexual marriage as a social union between a man and a woman, so there is no need for a re definition, and no clarification but restriction is offered to same sex couples, prohibiting them from enjoying the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals. It is further believed that his will further affect their participating in social events such as base housing projects, support groups and family programs etc, which is again a point of concern for the army. (Defense,2012). After marriage, the next step in a gay, lesbian or bisexual union is having children. Many countries allow homosexual couples to go for adoption. Eight countries including Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom permit the registered union of gay couples, wherein they may enjoy joint inheritance, insurance coverage rights etc. With the increasing advancement in medical science, there are many new methods and techniques, which enable a gay couple to have children. Such methods include test tube babies and engaging surrogate mothers, artificial insemination etc. Adoption is also an alternative through which gay parents may have the joy of parenthood (Trapp, 2009). CONCLUSION Hence, we may conclude that gay soldiers are as: useful, hard working, patriotic and intelligent as their heterosexual counterparts. Any opposition against them from joining the army would be a severe prejudice based mainly upon homophobia (Trapp, 2009). This negativity towards gay soldiers can be reduced dramatically, once their straight (heterosexual) fellow soldiers are allowed see for how dynamic and full of country love they are. The armed forces, like any other profession require bonds of trust and brotherhood under intense situations such as war or combat. A person comes to terms with their sexualities, only in their mid-twenties long after getting enlisted in the armed forces. If gays are allowed to work like normal in the army, after their self identification of sexual orientation, they will not have to live a secret life both on personal and professional fronts. This will also reduce the fear of blackmail and social pressures which might distract and restrain them from working in their full capacities, as it is a job of defending country’s national interests. The important issue is not just implementing the law, but half hearted implementation is an even worst case. If awareness is created amongst people and potential army candidates, that sexual interests within the army are not exemplary and they must not be encouraging or emulating them, then it will be a guiding force for upcoming younger generations of aspiring soldiers. It will not be misleading gays as well (Trapp, 2009). Gays and lesbian unions especially for the army are a matter of grave concern, although new regulations are lenient towards them, and allow them to co-exist with the heterosexual majority. But people who have traditional and religious mind set and upbringing are mildly and aggressively reserved in attitude and perceptions towards having a working relationship with LBG’s (Lesbians Bisexuals Gays). So in my opinion, need is that a specific quota must be dedicated to gay community, instead of encouraging the young generation of soldiers towards embracing this culture. There should be a pre-set boundary to give freedom to people who are aware of their sexual identities and embrace them. They must not be denied their fair and due rights just for being who they are, and this is exactly what freedom of expression is all about. REFERENCES Zimmerman, C. A., & Wilcox, C. (2007). The politics of same-sex marriage. (p. 385). University of Chicago Press. http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=D63iTQrXQsQC&pg=PA232&dq=gay marriages in the military&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0BIHUNntOIizrAenjcnHBg A, D., & Richards, J. (1998). Women, gays, and the constitution: The grounds for feminism and gay rights . (p. 531). University of Chicago. http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=y95vaGLKEgMC&pg=PA438&dq=gay marriages in the military&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0BIHUNntOIizrAenjcnHBg Department , D. (2012). End of dont ask, dont tell. (p. 274). Government Printing Office, http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=mm9CT-7RzvMC&pg=PR40&dq=gay marriages in the military and doma&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZhoJUJqRLc3orQfXw_3HCA&ved=0CDYQuwUwAA Trapp, R. (2009). The debatabase book: A must-have guide for successful debate. (p. 238). IDEA http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=GhAL8jl-BY8C&pg=PA105&dq=scientific debate on gay marriages in military&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fXoJUJHbCs7LrQeH_dDICA . Read More