Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The History of Gay Soldiering
Via
the Cincy Enquirer comes this AP story on an exhibit about gay
soldiers in the pre-"don't ask, don't tell" era:
The airman's dress blues are faded, the footlocker he carried through three tours in Vietnam has gone to rust. Yet the epitaph he chose to mark his grave is still as fresh as today's headlines: "When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one."
Leonard Matlovich's medals, uniform and other personal effects make up the centerpiece of "Out Ranks," a new exhibit that documents the tortured relationship between gay troops and the U.S. military from World War II to the present.
Matlovich, who died in 1988, was a decorated Air Force sergeant who came out to his commanding officer a month before the fall of Saigon, hoping to challenge the government's ban on gay service members. In 1975, the idea of an openly gay combat veteran was incongruous enough to land him on the cover of Time magazine....
The show also reflects the lives of individual soldiers and sailors who, even more than most, had to give up their personal identities when they put on uniforms - from a brigadier general who did not come out until after his retirement to lesbians who found a sense of belonging in the Women's Army Corps during World War II.
Michael Job, 62, a Vietnam veteran who later founded a peace group for gay veterans, donated a bulletproof Bible, hats and other items for the exhibit. Job said he enlisted in the Army in 1970 because he feared he might be gay....
Escaping questions about his sexuality was not so simple, though. Job said when local women were brought into camp to have sex with the soldiers, he had to make up excuses for why he would not get in line. Even now, Job said he feels uncomfortable attending support groups with other veterans being treated for post-traumatic stress.
If you've never read about the post-World War I Newport Sex Scandal--surely one of the most bizarre gays-in-the-military witch hunts of all time, featuring Franklin Roosevelt, undercover seaman who would make a Cruising-era Al Pacino flush with embarrassment, and the Jazz Era's answer to Rev. Ted Haggard--check it out here.
D.A. Ridgely|6.21.07 @ 9:45AM|#
You just had to work "undercover seaman" in there
somewhere.
One must assume "discharged seaman" just wouldn't fit.
SugarFree|6.21.07 @ 10:18AM|#
Somewhere, way down in dark confines of this bigot driven
non-controversy I think there is a commentary to be made on the
ability of a volunteer army to have quirks and peccadilloes like
this.
Only a standing army, training and waiting around for wars of
choice, could afford to discard soldiers based on their sexual
preference. In a military that was engaged in a conflict that
actually threatened America, an invasion scenario for example, this
would never come up.
highnumber|6.21.07 @ 10:33AM|#
I have to wonder what kind of excuses he would have given to not
get busy with the ladies brought into the camp. Religious? Health?
If the other soldiers really cared whether Mr Job was gay or
straight, those had to be really great excuses, because for a guy
to pass up sex, wow.
Just saying.
Anywho, sexual orientation of soldiers was the issue that really
caught my attention during the little bit of the one Repub debate I
saw. Ron Paul gave a totally cowardly response. I was quite
disappointed.
|6.21.07 @ 10:56AM|#
Highnumber: The first thing that comes to my mind is "I'm
married, and I have sworn before GOD to be faithful to my wife.
GOD, do you hear that? G-O-D! Adultery is a sin, amen!"
Or else, "I'm not married, and I have sworn before GOD to abstain
from sex outside marriage. GOD, do you hear that? G-O-D!
Fornication is a sin, amen!"
Maintaining that cover story might be a pain, but I doubt it'd be
questioned on its face.
SugarFree|6.21.07 @ 11:08AM|#
VM,
And, of course, there is my 20-year-old reaction that my wife has
never let me forget: "What could be more frightening on the
battlefield than having to face a highly-trained, heavily-armed
platoon of PMSing bull dykes?" Even at that tender age it seemed
like a waste of resources...
(It's the "bull dyke" part she's never let me live down. I spoke it
in too-polite of company.)
|6.21.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Well, I wouldn't go with status quo being acceptable, but I
don't know what changes I would make.
So, if I were running for president, I would go with "status quo is
acceptable", for now.
highnumber|6.21.07 @ 11:12AM|#
kwais,
I'd go with "The current policy is hypocritical and bigoted. We
should change it to 'Don't ask, don't care.'"
SugarFree|6.21.07 @ 11:13AM|#
kwais,
How about just telling the military to grow up and stop acting like
12-year-olds playing their first game of "Smear the Queer?"
Homopanic is so 7th grade.
Of course, you're right. You can't speak your mind a expect to be
elected president. Right of left, it's always a liar that wins.
|6.21.07 @ 11:27AM|#
"What could be more frightening on the battlefield than
having to face a highly-trained, heavily-armed platoon of PMSing
bull dykes?"
In Iraq you'd have the added advantage of them reaining
water.
I know, you've heard it before.
|6.21.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Not that I'm one to normally do cross-country comparisons, but
the Britis military didn't seem to explode from their relatively
recent opening of the military to non-closeted gays. The Israelis
have allowed them for a while as well.
When I was in the service, people didn't, in general seem to care
that much as long people could do their job but maybe that was just
the squadrons I was in. Who knows?
|6.21.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Highnumber,
If allowing openly gay people to serve causes less straight people
to join. And causes and increase in violence toward and from gay
service members. Is that a benefit?
I mean it might not happen, but I think it will.
Also, I see the hypocrisy doubling with an openly gay military, not
diminishing.
The drama and the hypocrisy of a co-ed military doubling.
VM|6.21.07 @ 11:34AM|#
"I spoke it in too-polite of company."
understood.
High#: agreed.
Suger (part le deux) - qft
|6.21.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Sugarfree,
A large number of people in the military, are just out of high
school.
They are the very same kids that were in high school with you, that
were obsessed with sex, that were somewhat self conscious about
they way they were perceived, and sexuality was a big part of
it.
Boot camp got them in shape, taught them how to shoot, and take
orders. But it didn't change who they were. And it didn't affect
their hormones.
|6.21.07 @ 11:42AM|#
All forcing gays to be closeted in order to be in the military
does is ensure that the military will never progress to the point
where they could accept gays openly. It reinforces the notion that
it's something to be ashamed of, which is what the macho-military
types were likely brought up to think.
The only way to even remotely change their minds is for them to get
to know people who are gay. I'm sure, to a certain section
of the population, when you mention "gays" in any context they
IMMEDIATELY come up with images of ass-obsessed, effeminate,
flamboyant, lisping, scrawny men who like to wear panty-hose and
listen to Barbara Streisand.
Perhaps if they got to know guys who were gay, like some of my
friends, that happened to act more-or-less like they do, they might
change their minds somewhat. But keeping it all segregated like
this just enables them to assign a label and a stereotype and hold
their ground.
Mike|6.21.07 @ 11:43AM|#
A gay Vietnam vet neighbor has alluded to some pretty horrible events from his tour of duty. Let's just say, female prostitutes are relatively small problems for a gay man surrounded by sexually starved, isolated young men in an violent, stressful environment.
|6.21.07 @ 11:49AM|#
I don't know what to say Kwais. There was plenty of making fun
of gays and what not so it wasn't kumbaya land or anything but
there seemed to be more people, in general, who could care less
than there were people who were violently opposed to the idea (and
yes there were people who expressed such sentiments).
There also was, in general, a greater concentration of apathy about
the issue with the newer troops than the older troops.
I'm not saying the military is some super-gay friendly haven, I
just think there is a lot more apathy (and that is what is more
apathy than anything) than antipathy.
To be honest though, I can't help but be reminded of all the
various comments that were made about unit integrity, anti-minority
violence, et cetera when the first talk of racially integrating the
military.
Heck, that was a situation where there were definite incidents of
violence back and forth while things got settled in including a few
high profile incidents that damaged mission readiness during
wartime. Was that too high a price to pay for the racially
integrated military we have today?
I guess it all comes down to what is the acceptable price to pay
for advancing a policy and, like you said, the overall effect. As
much as people like to ignore it, there are readiness issues to
consider and we need to have some decent way of determining the
best way to go about this new integration in the best way to
advance social justice and readiness.
|6.21.07 @ 11:51AM|#
What kind of genius thinks that unit cohesion and military discipline are promoted by a policy which requires soldiers to become adept at misleading their mates and superior officers, and requires officers to become adept at turning a blind eye towards their subordinates when they suspect them of being deliberately deceptive?
|6.21.07 @ 12:08PM|#
bzial,
When I was fresh out of boot camp, I remember violent homophobia as
the norm. I don't remember anybody apathetic about
homosexuality.
When I was in the reserves, and there were mostly college educated
troops, there was probably a 40 percent apathy, and the "I don't
personally have a problem with it" types. 60% opposed.
The new troops that I see, seem as generally opposed as they did in
my day. But many classes and lectures that say that any homophobic
language is treated as sexual harassment, has kept open sentiments
on the downlow.
|6.21.07 @ 12:11PM|#
Joe,
There is a lot of that mandatory deceptiveness in the military
today.
For chrissakes, Porn and Alcohol are illegal under general order
number 1.
Also, the whole co-ed separate but equal military is a farce.
VM|6.21.07 @ 12:15PM|#
joe - cuz it makes some people uncomfortable. And they can't
deal with All Things Uncomfortable
you know, that creepy thing called "Love".
And combining "Love" and "All Things Comfortable", have you checked
out the URKOBOLD store? (hier)
H/T: Mr. DaGeek for setting that up!
|6.21.07 @ 12:24PM|#
I got out 2004. I don't know. Probably varies by MOS, AFSC, et
cetera as well.
Like I said people were all about homophobic jokes and what not,
violent homophobia not as much.
Maybe it just the result of people keeping it to themselves but
there also was several troops that were known to be gay that were
not getting the shit kicked out of them either. We all knew, for
the most part, who the gay troops were.
Heck, when I was in Korea there was a discharge of one gay troop
with a lot of people actually annoyed at the discharge.
Maybe it was just the units I was in. My evidence, in the end, is
just ancedotal though I think there is definitely something more
going on here than just people keeping their mouth shut because of
sexual harassment training (which, on a side note was totally and
utterly ineffective at least in all the units I was in).
In the end though, I just don't know. It is such a hard thing to
accurately judge.
I can't honestly say if I had the keys to the kingdom I would just
throw open the doors without a better analysis on what would happen
or a definite plan to not seriously undermine the military.
|6.21.07 @ 12:30PM|#
kwais,
Keeping specific acts on the down-low is one thing.
But imagine how your life would change if, when you were in the
military, you and your CO were forbidden from indicating to each
other that you found women attractive, or had girlfriends, or were
married.
|6.21.07 @ 12:34PM|#
But imagine how your life would change if, when you were in
the military, you and your CO were forbidden from indicating to
each other that you found women attractive, or had girlfriends, or
were married.
I bet that would be psychologically frustrating. Good analogy
joe.
|6.21.07 @ 12:38PM|#
highnumber,
Ron Paul wasn't clear on the issue; he first said that the current
policy is a good one, but then went on to specify that homosexual
behavior that was "disruptive" should be disciplined, as well as
disruptive heterosexual behavior.
Of course, that's NOT the current policy, so I'm not clear where he
stands. I think that's just not one of the issues he has a strong
stance on.
|6.21.07 @ 12:39PM|#
I didn't know anyone in the service who was gay. Or rather, who
I suspected of being gay.
I did know two people who were kicked out because they tested
positive on a drug test.
One of them was one of the most squared away guys that there were.
It was a great loss.
It was because of sex, and we all understood. He was at a party,
and there was MJ being passed around, and she wanted him to take a
hit, and to give him a better chance at getting in the pants he
did.
We all understood, and knew that it could have been any one of
us.
That drug policy is some hypocrisy.
|6.21.07 @ 12:44PM|#
But imagine how your life would change if, when you were in
the military, you and your CO were forbidden from indicating to
each other that you found women attractive
Damn close to where it is now.
|6.21.07 @ 12:47PM|#
If allowing openly gay people to serve causes less straight
people to join. And causes and increase in violence toward and from
gay service members. Is that a benefit?
I mean it might not happen, but I think it will.
If allowing black serve with whites causes less white people to
join. And causes and increase in violence toward and from black
service members, is that a benefit?
I mean it might not happen, but I think it will.
|6.21.07 @ 12:51PM|#
I always thought the concern about substance abuse was very ironic in light of the typical off-duty overseas recreation (at least where I was stationed): continuous multi-day heavy drinking.
|6.21.07 @ 12:56PM|#
That is to say, it was often our NCOs and the occasional officer who was about leading troops out on their Charge Against Sobriety. I just can't get worked up about the idea of some dude toking up on occasion when that kind of thing was happening..well pretty much every day. It seems to me bad troops get identified with or without drug testing anyway.
Mike|6.21.07 @ 1:00PM|#
kwais,
He basically made it sound like certain soldiers, presumed gay by
the rest, were sexually assaulted by other soldiers. It seemed to
be a violent mix of "let's fuck up the fag" and "any port in a
storm".
I imagine these days, where less time is spent in the middle of the
jungle a million miles from nowhere, it's a less significant
problem. But it clearly left some emotional scars for the
particular person who recounted it.
SugarFree|6.21.07 @ 1:41PM|#
kwais,
The fan dance of "unit cohesion" bothers me. The military doesn't
want gay service members because of anti-gay bias. Come out and say
that. Say "Boot camp doesn't stop us from being ignorant bigots" or
"We're all rednecks with the IQ of Jesse Helms." (Or we could
expect a little bit more from our recruits.)
Conservatives and the military may continue to exclude gays from
service to the detriment of the armed services (Arabic translators)
for years to come, but please stop saying it's based on something
other than WE HATE FAGS.
|6.21.07 @ 1:45PM|#
"The military doesn't want gay service members because of
anti-gay bias. Come out and say that."
Like Peter Pace.
SugarFree|6.21.07 @ 1:54PM|#
joe,
Which ribbon on his chest is for homophobe? Surely not the pink
one...
|6.21.07 @ 3:42PM|#
[ital] For chrissakes, Porn and Alcohol are illegal under
general order number 1. [end ital]
kwais,
GO#1 only applies in CENTCOM (the Middle East). And even over
there, in some locations alcohol is allowed, albeit rationed.
As for porn, that prohibition is out of deference to our Muslim
hosts in whose countries we're based (who says the military is
insensitive.) Outside CENTCOM, troops can, and do, have as much
porn as they desire.
|6.21.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Should have been:
(who says the military is insensitive?)
(Question mark)
(...and slight sarcasm)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245