Homosexuals in the Military - Term Paper Example

Homosexuals and the Military In a fair and equitable world, homosexuals would be no different from everyone else and would be entitled to all the same rights and privileges as the average citizen. While it is thought that this equity actually does exist today, at least to a great extent, in fact there are continuously more and more obstacles placed in the path of homosexuals which affect their day to day life. The United States of America is a nation founded on freedom, and by this is meant freedom and rights of all kinds from speech to expression to the right to bear arms and the right to protest peacefully. These freedoms and rights are entitled to all American citizens, including homosexuals. However, behind the displayed screen of an apparent free and equal society, homosexuals cannot openly exercise some of the rights that other American citizens are allowed to. Military service is the example discussed here. Homosexuals often have two parallel lives or sides to them. In one they live openly as they please, associating themselves with whomever they please, dressing the way they want, speaking the way they want to speak and plainly living as they please just like everyone else in society. In the other, they must hide their real selves and conform to the masses in order to enjoy the rights and privileges of the average citizen or, more disturbingly, to avoid discrimination and overt hostility from others. It is the general state of things that the rights of a person end where the rights of another begins. As such, just as the right of free speech is subject to the limitation of not defaming or slandering others, the right of homosexuals to simply be their true selves and embrace their sexuality seems to be subject to the right of the masses to be shielded from behavioral aspects that they subjectively feel are immoral or unnatural. As such there are many instances where homosexuals who openly display and even advertise their sexuality in the streets through the use of banners and advertisements is seen as offensive and many people act hostile against this, leading to discrimination. This same situation is the problem homosexuals experience while serving in the military. Ever since the Unites States developed its military, it has been seen as a society of tough, fearless and selfless men responsible for the safety and defense of their nation. It is an environment designed specifically for disciplined leaders who go beyond the call and who all fight for the same cause and have similar characteristics. Individuality is not praised in the military. Since the early history of the US military, homosexuals have served this country but have acquired that right secretly by hiding their sexual orientation. Even, females were not allowed to serve in the military until after World War II, which in terms of military history is moderately recent. Although women were allowed to serve, discrimination was still present by not recognizing their heroic contributions and depriving them of service under combat units. With society’s embracement of diversity, today females serve almost completely equal alongside male service members. Although the number of homosexuals has also slightly increased with the years, such equality as women have finally come to enjoy is as yet to be achieved with respect to homosexuals. The underlying policy that has been adopted by the United States Military is that homosexuals cannot serve in its ranks. That is, there is a complete ban on homosexuals serving in the military. The reasons for this are multitude, each more specious than the previous one. Jones and Koshes identified three main arguments for the exclusion of homosexuals from military service: (1) homosexuality was deemed to be a mental disorder rendering a person unstable (2) homosexual service members are a source of poor morale for military units (3) homosexual service members were risks to security While this underlying policy is still prevalent, the means of enforcing it has changed along the way, as reactions to determinations of the executive, legislative and judicial arms of the nation as well as changes in the views of society. This was first seen when on July 19th 1993, President Clinton unveiled his policy on homosexuals in the military which came to be known as the "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue” policy. Under this policy, homosexuals are not to be asked nor are they allowed to discuss their sexuality. In essence, the policy works by allowing homosexuals to serve in the military by denying or hiding their orientation. It is important to note that this policy in no way gives homosexuals the right to serve in the military, but instead provides for a sort of negative allowance to serve in the military so long as they keep their homosexuality undisclosed and private and an agreement from the military that they will not actively inquire into the sexuality of its servicemen. It seemed like this policy would be the perfect solution to this issue, but, since 1993, as noted by the Human Rights Watch in its 2003 Report on the subject, discharges from the military by reason of actual or perceived homosexuality has actually increased. Up to the end of 2001, a total of 7,793 service men had been discharged for their homosexuality. By way of comparison, in 2001, the number of such discharges was 1,256 while in 1992, prior to the operation of the "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue” policy, the number of such discharges recorded was only 730, which amounted to a little over half of the year 2001 figure. Webly reports that from 1994 approximately 12,000 servicemen have been discharged by reason of their orientation. The main reason behind the increased number of discharges was due to the fact many senior officers sanctioned the term ‘homosexual’ in the military medical screening as a handicap. The dictionary’s definition for handicap is, “any disadvantage that makes success more difficult”, and in the context of homosexuality, meant that the sexual orientation of a serviceman was deemed to be a threat to the units within the US armed forces affecting their team morale and conflicting with the accomplishment of the mission. Discharges over these criteria were immediately investigated and were discontinued. However, many more discharges were carried out under the charges of violating the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy where service members misunderstood the meaning of it and were witnessed displaying openly homosexual acts while in uniform. However, Burrelli and Feder also suggest that the increase in discharges could be due to serviceman voluntarily and knowingly disclosing their homosexuality and getting themselves removed from service so as to terminate their military obligations prematurely, irrespective of whether they were in actual fact homosexual or not. In any event, even today the "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue” policy is prevalent. President Obama has been an advocate against the ban on homosexuals in the military and the so-called compromise contained in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. However, like many of his other campaign promises, he has failed to realize what he advocated. It will take more than the backing of the President to change the policy. Legislative direction through the Congress will need to be passed in order for any material change in the policy to be effected. Even the judiciary, which is conventionally thought to be the fierce guardian of the fundamental rights of persons, has failed to obtain equity for homosexuals in the military, as seen by the adverse judgments delivered by them over the years. From the inception of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, persons have challenged it in courts to generally unfavorable results. Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have upheld the policy in a number of cases, ranging from Richenberg v. Perry in 1996 to Cook v. Gates as recently as 2008. The policy has even been upheld, albeit indirectly, in Supreme Court as seen in the popular case of Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. Here the Supreme Court held that it was not unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold funding from universities which disallowed military recruiters from accessing the school’s resources by reason of the school’s disapproval of the military policy on homosexuality. More recently in September 2010, however, the District Court for the Central District of California in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America gave a hallmark judgment, holding that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was unconstitutional. Judge Virginia Phillips, in giving the judgment, declared that the policy violated homosexuals’ rights of free speech and equality under the law as the policy has the effect of ultimately restricting homosexuals from speaking about their lives. Furthermore, in addition to this declaration, the judge later granted an immediate injunction banning the operation of the policy. As reported by Willon, this decision was seen by critics of the policy not just as a win for the Log Cabin Republican Party but for all servicemen in the military and perhaps even for all homosexuals in general. This success was however short lived. By the end of October a temporary stay order had already been granted against the injunction, effectively putting the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy back into operation and on November 1st, 2010 a permanent stay order was granted against Judge Virgin Phillips’ injunction. This pattern continued and, as Schwartz reports, on November 12th, 2010 the Supreme Court too backed the stay order and held that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy will remain in operation during the continuance of the legal challenge to the policy in the appeal courts. As such, until and unless the appeal courts uphold Judge Virginia Phillips’ judgment, the policy will be alive and kicking. These fluctuations in the judgments delivered by the judicial system further supports the idea that it is legislation which is the most appropriate tool by which the ban on homosexuals and the accompanying “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy can be finally overturned. President Obama is of a similar view and is reported by Schwartz as to have urged Congress to overturn the ban and policy. There has been some legislative activity in relation to the subject which has been favorable. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act is currently a Bill being passed before the House of Representatives and essentially looks to overturn both the ban on homosexuals in the military and the accompanying “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Instead, the bill introduces a policy of non-discrimination based on one’s sexuality. Eleveld reports that this Bill was introduced into the Senate by Joseph Lieberman early this year. There have also been efforts to lift the ban by introducing provisions into the Defense Bill for 2011. Furthermore, as recently as mid November 2010, the Associated Press reported that the Senate’s top democrat Senator Harry Reid had announced of his plans to call for a vote on a Bill that, in addition providing a broader military defense policy, overturned the ban on homosexuals in the military. These legislative efforts are promising, albeit subject to much opposition and debate, and perhaps in the near future the ban on homosexuals serving in the military and the accompanying policies will be no more than an embarrassing part of our history. Being homosexual is not a disease or a handicap, but just a part of a person…just like one’s sex or race or religion. If sexual, racial and religious discrimination is frowned upon, discrimination based on sexuality should follow suit. The United States is a country that is founded on freedom and equality and it is the military that is said to be in place to fight for these freedoms and equal rights. It is ironic then that the very institution that is established to protect these rights cannot uphold them in its ranks. Works Cited Associated Press. “Reid to Push Another Vote on Military Gay Ban”. Fox News (Web). 18 Nov. 2010 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/18/senate-vote-military-gay-ban/ Burrelli, David F. and Jody Feder. Homosexuals and the U.S. Military: Current Issues. CRS Reports for Congress. 22 July 2009. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL30113.pdf Eleveld, Kerry. “Exclusive: Lieberman Introduces DADT Repeal Bill”. Advocate (Web). 3 Mar. 2010 http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/03/Lieberman_Introduces_DADT_Repeal_Bill/ Human Rights Watch. Uniform Discrimination: The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy of the U.S. Military. January 2003, Vol 15, No. 1 (G). http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa0103/index.htm Jones F.D and R.J. Koshes. “Homosexuality and the Military.” American Journal of Psychiatry. 1995; 152:16-21. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/152/1/16 [abstract] Schwartz, John. “Ban on Gays in the Military Stays in Effect.” The New York Times. 13 Nov. 2010: A10. Webley, Kayla. “Brief History of Gays in the Military.” Time Daily. 2 Feb. 2010 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1958246,00.html Willon, Phil. “Judge declares U.S. military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy openly banning gay service members unconstitutional.” Los Angeles Times. 9 Sept. 2010. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/federal-judge-declares-us-military-ban-on-openly-gay-service-members-unconstitutional-.html Read More