In 1947, civil rights activist A. Philip Randolph took the anti-Jim Crow fight to Washington, meeting with President Truman and testifying before the Senate Armed Forces Committee. Subsequent to his persistent efforts, in July of 1948, 16 years before the Civil Rights Act legally ended segregation in America, the US military was desegregated. Even before black Americans could simply ride in the front of a Montgomery public bus without being harassed, (then) Col. Benjamin O. Davis, Jr. was flying F-86 Sabres over North Korea as the commanding officer of the racially integrated 51st Fighter Wing.
When I was in The Basic School, a major gave us a lecture on equal opportunity. “We aren’t white or black, yellow or brown here,” she told us. “We’re just different shades of green,” referring to our perennial uniform color. It seemed kind of touchy-feely to us, but perhaps the metaphor had helped earlier generations of Marines bridge the race divide. From what I could sense, we hardly needed it.
In the room that day there were Latter Day Saints, Iranian-Americans, South African and Nigerian-born Marines, mulattoes, and Filipinos to name but a few of our diverse group. The only shades of difference I remember about those Marines were how well they soldiered and how funny their jokes were- I was more comfortable around them than I had been with the kids in my neighborhood growing up who were culturally, socio-economically, and religiously identical to me.
But there was one minority for which there was no sanctioned shade of green and one that the major wouldn’t even mention to us- the unrepresented, illegal military minority: homosexuals.
In 1994, after campaigning on a platform to allow gays to serve openly in the military, President Clinton introduced section 654 of the US Code’s Title 10: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). The compromise was an attempt to create a legal loophole to allow gays to serve in the military, but in some critics’ eyes, it merely created a legal tool to oust gays from the military, regardless of their performance.
The arguments waged against allowing gays to serve openly remain the same today: that homosexuals somehow threaten the efficacy of combat units by degrading unit cohesion:
The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. [Section 654, Title 10]
This argument was made last week by Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness (a misnamed, unofficial, third party lobby) who, at a recent House Armed Services hearing on DADT, stated all gays should be banned from serving without any exceptions. In response, Iraq War veteran, Rep. Patrick Murphy [D-PA] honestly and personally denounced this argument: “You’re asserting that straight men and women in our military aren’t professional enough to serve openly with gay troops while successfully completing their mission, and as a former Army officer, I can tell you that I think that’s an insult to me and to many of the soldiers.”
The suggestion that there is any evidence to show openly gay servicemembers damage unit cohesion is totally specious- there are no such studies as there is no provision for gays to serve openly in the military in the first place. The argument that integrated (straight and openly gay) units would suffer a detriment to unit cohesion is purely subjective and based on personal opinion built on fear, the way the same argument was made about desegregating the military in 1947, as well as allowing women to serve as pilots and line officers.
The policy of discriminating against homosexuals and preventing them from serving openly in the US military is one that is passed off as being on behalf of the troops, when really it is at the expense of troops and on behalf of politicians themselves. Politicians wrapping themselves in the flag seek to convince you that they have the military’s best interests in mind: that the military is a “special culture” with its own values that need to be safeguarded. True, but discrimination is not one of them. That unit cohesion is essential to the type of work and lifestyle of serving in the military. True, but ripping qualified, motivated personnel out of their jobs because they are gay damages unit cohesion more than teaching troops to work with people who are different from themselves, which is the most essential element of military leadership in the first place. In the end, having soldiers living in fear of being “outed”, concealing their lives and lying to their comrades-in-arms like hunted fugitives, does more to damage unit cohesion than pretending DADT actually helps.
When I had a group of local surfers and a few Marines I had recently met over to my house for dinner in San Diego, I wasn’t sure how the two groups would interact. Would the Marines be typically conservative and brusque? Would the Californians annoy everyone with their faux enlightenment? In the end, I was happy to have my stereotypes shattered and my world come momentarily crashing down around me. After the surfers left, I sat with the Marines- Midwesterners mostly- and we incredulously recapped the night’s conversation in which the Californians made racist and homophobic jokes that the Marines had all found tasteless. Unexpectedly, in the course of two minutes, all the Marines asserted independently that they believed gays should be able to serve openly in the military as it was their right and privilege as much as ours. It remains one of my proudest moments in the military.
The American Paradox is the term used to describe America’s founding on principles of equality, but its sanctioning and sustainment of slavery. While the Civil Rights movement helped America correct some of its institutional hypocrisies and implement legal guarantees for all races of Americans, we are nonetheless living in another American Paradox today. America, she who fills the world’s airwaves with self-aggrandizing and accusatory rhetoric about freedom, equality, and democracy, has a second-class of citizens that are legally entitled to less because of their sexual orientation.
“Unequal treatment to one of us [military members] is unequal treatment to us all,” said Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, USA (ret.) at the subcommittee hearing last week. When Washington’s lobbies and politicians say that Americans who want to serve their country in the profession of arms are unqualified because of whom they chose to love in their personal lives, they are sabotaging the very “cohesion” they claim to be defending, and further poisoning our military culture that values and truly depends on diversity.
The rhetoric between politicians, lobbyists, and old guard veterans is heated, but if you poll the generation of Americans in the trenches, I’ll bet my retirement savings that the majority couldn’t care less what sexual orientation a soldier has. More importantly, I know that the US military, regardless of its members’ individual opinions, has the professionalism, discipline, and resolve to integrate openly gay members and adapt to any new social dynamics that a repeal of DADT would bring about. The result would be a stronger military rid of witch hunt politics and endorsed homophobia.
The military led the country in desegregation 60 years ago, but today has been forced to retain an antiquated, prejudiced, and inefficient policy that allies like the UK, Australia, Germany, and Canada have already done away with. Are we really the international icon of liberty and justice for all? How about liberty and justice for your gay war veterans as well? All they're asking for is the right to fight to the death to defend your freedom.
Do Something: Your Senators Your Representatives
Further Reading/Viewing: US Code 10 Section 654 NYT Time Magazine Vetvoice Congressional Hearing on Youtube Gen. Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., USAF
[Edits made]