This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.
« Katrina and Global Warming | Main | Punish Executive Crooks Without Punishing Ourselves »
September 20, 2005
Gays in the Military
Ed Brayton of ITA links to a piece in Positive Liberty highlighting the contradiction in the military's policy on gay service.
On the one hand, they adamantly claim that allowing gays to serve in the military undermines morale and unit cohesion (the same exact arguments they made 60 years ago against allowing blacks to serve in "white" units, incidentally), but on the other hand when wartime comes around they suddenly stop discharging those who admit to being gay.I'm sure that the military's policy, if accurately described here, is an attempt to limit use of the "gay card" to avoid deployment in a war zone, but that makes me wonder why the military would want to deploy cowards in the first place. That point aside, the contradiction is glaring given that the miliary's rationale for their policy is that allowing gays to serve openly would harm morale and unit cohesion in battle.
Ed ended his post by taking a stand against discrimination: "Gay soldiers can serve their country just as bravely as straight ones."
Josh Clayborn questioned Ed and others who agree with him in comments: "Should women also be permitted to serve in all capacities of the military?"
Ed responded: "If an individual is qualified to perform a given duty, I do not think that traits unrelated to the performance of that duty should prevent them from being allowed to do so. That would include their skin color, gender, sexual orientation and perhaps other factors; I would also include the potential reaction of other soldiers to those unrelated traits as an unrelated trait in and of itself."
My two cents: In high school, I studied the case of a woman who served in Panama as an MP during the invasion in 1989. While on patrol, her unit came under fire. Although she had the same training as the men in her unit, the men instinctively surrounded her and would not let her engage the enemy. Due to "traits unrelated to her performance" she became a liability on that mission, although on paper she was supposed to be an asset. Her story provoked a very heated discussion for an 11th grade history class, but the I have always remembered the exercise.
Sure the MP case at was 16 years ago, but I think the point has some contemporary relevance.
The question about gays in the military is not one of the capability of the gay man or woman. It is about the tolerance of the men and women with whom they would serve. The military should not be a social experiment, although I agree that is the same terrible argument used against integration with blacks decades ago.
The issue is tough to approach from a policy standpoint and perhaps best resolved through incrementalism. President Clinton's "Dont' Ask, Don' Tell" policy was a good incremental step. The current policy limiting discharging of gays during war time is another incremental step. The more exposure the brass and grunts get to the gays within their ranks, the more tolerant they will become and the lower the threat they will pose to morale and unit cohesion.
Posted by Rick at September 20, 2005 01:42 AM
Trackback Pings
Comments
I don't think it's difficult from a policy standpoint- Neither women or gays should be allowed in combat or combat support units- not because of their individual abilities, but because romantic relationships, or even unrequieted romantic feelings can pose tremendous problems, particularly among a bunch of twenty-somethings isolated far from home. I present exhibit 'A': the romantic relationship of Lynndie England and Charles Graner, as well as the fact that his current wife was also in that unit, although I don't remember her name. Women can still be allowed in support roles, but the gay problem, because you can't tell who is gay just by looking, means that they must be barred from the service entirely. Anyone who tells you a sob story about how we're depleting the mililtary of a valuable resource should be pointed to the fact that self-identified gay and bisexual men make up less than 4% of the population- and probably far less in the military. It's really not so complicated- but it IS politically INcorrect.
Posted by: douglas at September 20, 2005 03:30 AM
Now see, I've got a dilemma...I have to agree that I don't want to see gays in the military, but only because I don't want to see ANY Christians or other peace-lovers in the military.
Now, I guess if a gay person is neither a Christian or a pacifist, then I'd support him/her being there about as much as I support anyone being in a much-abused military, which is not much.
So am I disagreeing with you or agreeing?
Peace.
Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 20, 2005 08:05 PM
Or are you even making sense? Why would you not want to see Christians or peace-lovers in the Army? Especially since, in our all-volunteer military, they would have chosen to be there?
Posted by: Doug Payton at September 20, 2005 08:54 PM
ummm, because Jesus told us to love our enemies and it's pretty damned difficult to do that when you're blasting their arms off?
Myself, I'd like to see the church return to her principles, to the teachings of Jesus, to the example of the early church, all of which would preclude serving in the military.
Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 21, 2005 09:04 AM
Dan, "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars" applies to more than taxes. Love your enemies means after you blast their arms off, you take them to a hospital and save their lives, even though they tried to kill you mercilessly. It doesn't mean put your weapn down, walk over and kiss them on the cheek. I also find rather curious your assertion that gays are all peace loving- why then do any want to join the military?
Posted by: douglas at September 22, 2005 03:30 AM
You misinterpreted me if you thought I was suggesting all gays are peace-loving. Certainly not the case. Gay folk have a range of opinions just like any other folk.
And that's an interesting tweaking of Jesus' words there. Methinks you're being a bit extrabiblical in your interpretation. Do you really think that Jesus would pick up an assault rifle and cut someone in half in love? (And before you answer that, remember the biblical injunction against blasphemy.)
Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 22, 2005 09:10 AM
I think that gays in the military should be allowed. As a gay in the military, I am not different from any other soldier. I bleed, breath, and kill the same as any other human. Don't judge me, its God's job to judge, not yours.
Posted by: "John Doe" at May 26, 2006 10:32 AM