Gays In The Military A Matter Of
National Insecurity Essay, Research Paper
Very frequently political establishments reflect the will of society and set the case in point for norms that will be expected of its members. The United States Military is still implementing antediluvian policies which threaten to harm the rules our state was founded upon. The rules of freedom and equality are those that every American holds closest to their bosom, that is unless you are in the military and are gay. The issue of homosexuals in the armed forces has developed into a instance of whether our state should know apart against a group simply because of nonvoluntary sexual orientation. Two relentless rules are apparent within this subject: that homophiles are of all time present throughout all subdivisions of the military and a relentless ill will against this group is in American society and the military. In order to efficaciously analyze this subject the undermentioned constructs will be discussed: an analysis of the current Department Of Defense policy refering homosexuals, solutions to cut down homophobia in the armed forces, a policy theoretical account refering homophiles in the military ( Lepicer 1-14 ) .
Prior to the reaching of the Clinton Administration with its docket to radically revise military policy sing the credence and intervention of homophiles, Department of Defense policy was good established and clear. Legal inquiries began to be raised in civilian tribunals disputing the military exclusion and discharge policies in the 1960 s and 1970 s. The services were forced to explicate and clearly warrant specific bounds and processs used in relation to service members claiming to be homosexual or convicted of such behaviour. During the Carter Administration a clear policy was signed into jurisprudence. It reads:
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of
individuals who engage in homosexual behavior or who, by their statements, show a leaning to prosecute in such behavior, earnestly impairs the achievement of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to keep subject, good order, and morale: to further common trust and assurance among service members ; to guarantee the unity of the system of rank and bid ; to ease assignment and world-wide deployment of service members who often must populate and work under close conditions affording minimum privateness ; to enroll and retain members of the Military Services: to keep the public acceptableness of military service ; and to forestall breaches of security ( Lepicer ) .
Everyone agrees that homosexuals were already in the military, but homosexuals want to function their state out of the cupboard. This construct pitted the homosexual community against the diehards who want to maintain them out. The consequence is a compromising & # 8220 ; Don t ask / Don t Tell & # 8221 ; policy which prevents recruiters from asking about an enlistees sexual penchant. The intent of the armed forces is to kill people and complete the mission at manus. Therefore anything that hinders the military from carry throughing this function is a possible menace to national security and must be looked at in an nonsubjective mode. The military s attitude towards homophiles day of the months back to the Revolutionary War when General George Washington approved the discharge and tribunal Martial of an officer for attempted buggery. Every twelvemonth more than 800 service members are separated from the military based on sexual orientation. The Department Of Defense current policy is both prejudiced and uneffective. Homosexuals should hold the right to function their state every bit long as their occupation public presentation is non affected by their private life. Presently the armed forces does non actively seek out and prosecute heterosexual service members who engage in buggery but they will travel to great lenghts to look into mere claims of homosexual behavior. Often history repetitions itself and the integrating of African Americans into the armed forces was one which met great resistance but is now an recognized rule. We as a state can see the folly and downright bias that was involved in the resistance of integrating of minorities into our military, one which in 20 old ages we may compare with the current statements affecting homosexuals in the military ( Wornsop 195-212, Schlueter 393-432 ) .
In his article, & # 8220 ; Not Asking or Telling: No redress, & # 8221 ; in the March 25, 1995, edition of the National Journal, David Morrison suggests that President Clinton s policy of & # 8220 ; Don T ask, Don T Tell, Don t Pursue & # 8221 ; has done little to stop the contention. The new policy is nil more than a reworded version of the old policy. The new policy forbids enquiries based on & # 8220 ; rumour, intuition, or freakish claims sing a member s sexual orientation. & # 8221 ; But in world this has non stopped some commanding officers. The Service Members Legal Defense Network cites these instances: a service member investigated after an anon. phone call, and another investigated because he had taken notes for a category on homosexualism. These instances show clearly how military leaders blatantly violate both current policy and single rights ( Morrison 748-749 ) .
Defense Department functionaries say that the policy appears to be working because the figure of discharges is down. There appears to be a distinguishable struggle between the instances that are reported and the Pentagons statements that center around the premiss that there have been no misdemeanors of the policy. In her book, Homosexuals And The Right To Serve, Major Melissa Wells-Petry discusses the military s expostulations to raising the prohibition. One of the chief issues is that of gender segregation. The writer explains that gender segregation is based on two rules: & # 8221 ; Peoples have a penchant for people of the opposite sex and they should be allowed to take to whom they expose an facet of their sexuality. & # 8221 ; Raising the prohibition would expose the parody that their are no homophiles in the armed forces. The statement is frequently brought up that says the presence of homophiles detracts from the military mission is present in both written policy and existent belief. In world anyone prosecuting in any sexual activity in the military environment threatens the mission of the armed forces. The differentiation of homosexual activity has no cogency or bearing on the truth of the affair. It is impossible to see how homophiles can take away from the care of good order wh
en about 75 % of those already in the armed forces are ne’er discovered. If a individual causes a job with order, morale or subject they should be separated from service regardless of sexual orientation ( Wells, Davis 54-107 ) .
The thought that homophiles pose a security hazard is clearly baseless since in a House Of Representatives Committee on National Security study proves homosexuals are less of a hazard. Of the 117 reported espionage instances between 1945 and 1991 merely 6 involved homophiles. The key to stoping favoritism based on sexual orientation in the armed forces is to convey an terminal to homophobia or antigay prejudice. In the book After The Ball: How America Will Conquer It s Fear & A ; Hatred Of Gays In The 90 s, the writers explore the ways to assist America accept homophiles. The techniques proposed are desensitisation, jamming, and transition. Desensitization aims at trying to take down the degree of anti-gay rhetoric. If we can efficaciously incorporate homophiles in the military so the freshness of homophiles will diminsh and so will the associated bias. Jamming is an aggressive and active attack which uses a psychological procedure that uses two viing theories that are associated. One illustration of thronging the armed forces could utilize is sensitiveness developing which will both educate the nescient person and besides acquire the person to experience shame for holding such an unsupported bias for an laden group. The construct of of transition is really altering 1s positions and beliefs. This thought is most effectual when people are exposed to homophiles in their mundane lives. If the military continues to make conditions which discourage an person from openly declaring their homosexualism so bias will go on and the us vs. them outlook will boom. If person discovers a friend is homosexual but is still really much like themselves so the construct of homosexualism becomes irrelevant. When people have prejudice against a certain group they rationalize by stating how different they are from them. It is apparent that the issues involved with raising the prohibition on African Americans in the armed forces has some really distinguishable similarities with the issue of homophiles. Tim Mcfeeley, executive manager of the Human Rights Campaign Fund provinces, & # 8220 ; Homosexuals are being persecuted in the armed forces for being different from the mainstream, merely as inkinesss were maltreated in the 1940 s and 50 s & # 8221 ; ( Duke A1, House Of Representatives 95-21 ) .
From the Revolutionary War to show twenty-four hours homophiles have served in the military with differentiation and pride. Yet although many have died in defence of the rules upon which our state was founded they are being denied the cardinal rights of autonomy and equality. Thousands of members of our military have been denied their right to function their state and a calling in the military basically because they are cheery. In the procedure of transfusing antediluvian rules upon the military our state has compromised its combat effectivity and undermined institutional unity. In his address denoting the & # 8221 ; Don t ask Don T Tell, & # 8221 ; policy President Clinton makes a really compelling statement against favoritism. Because the military & # 8221 ; is an establishment that embodies the best in America and must reflect the society in which it operates, it is besides right for the military to do alterations when the clip for alteration is at manus. I strongly believe that the military, like our society, needs the endowments of every individual who wants to do a part & # 8221 ; Certainly the clip for alteration is upon us. The military must halt discriminating based upon sexual orientation. If occupation public presentation is affected by any factor so the service member must be allowed to rectify the lacks or be separated. But if the footing for probe is mere intuition or beliefs that such behaviour may impact the organisation this is non a valid rule. The military must non let unlogical biass to drive forces policies. The turning figure of military organisations and para- military organisations that accept openly cheery persons proves the Pentagons frights are baseless. The Pentagon has stated that openly cheery service members threaten morale and contending effectivity. A General Accounting Office reappraisal found that out of 17 foreign military forces merely four explicitly ban homophiles from service. This shows America is in demand of a policy alteration and it must be just and compendious ( House Of Representatives ) .
Many veterans and soldiers feel that even if the prohibition were lifted it would non better conditions or increase credence degrees of homosexuals in the military. But raising the prohibition would alleviate the force per unit area on homosexual members which would interpret into an increased proficiency of occupation public presentation. Raising the prohibition would besides let jurisprudence enforcement and investigory bureaus to re-direct their resources toward condemnable misdemeanors instead than implementing ethical motives upon the minority. Research indicates that in foreign states that allow homophiles to function the figure of openly cheery persons is rather little. The bulk of the members were distinct and there were few jobs caused by the presence of homosexual members. Very frequently the forbiddance of a specific group causes members of society to keep irrational beliefs and so prosecute in violent activity against those categories of people they believe are a menace to the groups unity. Heterosexuals are frequently more accepting of those with alternate life styles when this group is non banned by the prevailing authorization. Emphasis must be placed on behaviour, behavior and work public presentation. Military leading must reassure both the minority and the bulk by back uping everyone s right to take ( Lolorado C1 ) .
Clearly the grounds supports the lifting of the cheery prohibition in full. The military s favoritism of single based on sexual orientation is non merely morally incorrect but collides with the rules our state was founded upon, equality and freedom. Our state has learned of import things from the integrating of African Americans into our military. The success of both our state and military depends upon the use of all of the resources that are available. America can non vie efficaciously if it relies upon outdated biass which are wholly without virtue. Sexual orientation is a personal private issue and non one which compromises national security.