The American military apparatus is one of the few amongst Western nations that continues to deny that lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals can and do play an important role within their military. It’s time the Pentagon got with the program.

Having grown up Army, I know how difficult a job it can be, even in peacetime. There are stresses involved that your average “civvie” can’t imagine. Add on top of those, always worrying about being outed and losing the career you have spent years building, along with the shame of having your personal life splashed across the whole base, it’s a wonder we don’t have more problems with morale.

The Canadian Armed Forces openly accepts homosexual and bisexual personnel. The Bundeswehr (Federal Germany military), along with the Dutch, Belgian, Danish, British, Israeli and other Western militaries, have also done so. It just isn’t a concern. Nor should it be.

There are very specific personality types that tend to be attracted to serving in the military, regardless of the orientation of the individual. It is that which makes the military effective. If a soldier happens to also be gay, lesbian or bisexual, this in no way impacts his or her dedication, ability to serve, or commitment to the command structure of the military.

If there is a problem, it usually originates with heterosexual peers who have an issue with “some queer/dyke” being in their unit. If that’s the case, there are systems in place to deal with harassment and prejudice. Negative reaction to a particular sexual orientation is no different than a negative reaction to race, religion, ethnicity, or gender and should be dealt with on that level.

The Pentagon has long maintained that having openly les-bi-gay personnel within the ranks will negatively affect general morale. Over the last few years, as various Western militaries have opened up, this rationale has been proven bogus. Pure crap, actually.

Like most of us, your average gay soldier/sailor/airman/Marine, is not about to try and bed someone who is not interested. Military units tend to be “family” and, not to be too crude, one doesn’t shit in one’s own nest. The complications of having a sexual liaison or a romantic relationship with those one lives and works with day in and day out is something most individuals will recognize as just too complicated to get involved with.

Of course, if two guys or two women do happen to connect and form a relationship, assuming they are of equal rank, it’s really nobody else’s business anyway.

Under 10 U.S.C. subsection 654 it states, first and foremost, there is no constitutional right to serve in the American armed forces.

Subsection 654 (a) continues, stating:

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that: (A) The extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and (B) The military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.

(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.

(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(15) 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.

There are, however, exceptions. Section 654 (b) states:

A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that: (A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior; (B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur; (C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation; (D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and (E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

The language is confusing, but the policy seems to state those who identify as homosexual and are likely to continue to be homosexual, and then act, or are believed will potentially act, on that orientation, will be removed from or disallowed involvement in the American armed forces.

My reading of the regulations indicates if an individual engaged in a “one-off” homosexual experience, he or she should not be dismissed from the armed forces, assuming the encounter did not involve force or coercion on their part. The hook here, however, is whether the investigators believe the conduct was “a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior” and unlikely to happen again; rather a difficult thing to prove when the investigator perhaps already perceives an individual as being probably gay, lesbian or bisexual for having had a homosexual experience.

This gets into the whole debate around whether straight men that have sex with men are, in fact, actually closeted gay/bisexual men. Does having one or two homosexual experiences mean one is at least bisexual? My view is that straight men can have sex with other man and still be heterosexual. Behaviour does not always equal orientation.

To give a clearer example, if I as a self-identified gay man had sex with women once or twice, am I suddenly bisexual? A “closet straight?” Of course not: I’m a gay man who had sex with a woman. If one is a gay man married to a woman, it does not mean he is bisexual; it means he is a gay man in an opposite-sex marriage.

Likewise, then, a heterosexual man who - for whatever reason - engaged in homosexual sex is not suddenly gay or bisexual or even “confused”; he’s a straight man who had sex with another man. The regulations appear to accommodate this, but I suspect that may not be the case. I can’t imagine the military being that subtle in their thinking or understanding of human sexuality.

To further complicate matters, the regulations attempt to define homosexual, bisexual and homosexual acts:

(1) The term “homosexual” means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms “gay” and “lesbian”.

(2) The term “bisexual” means a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual and heterosexual acts.

(3) The term “homosexual act” means: (A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and (B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).

Little wonder enlisted men and women might be well advised to “not tell.” Nobody can possibly know what might be allowed and what might not be allowed under such confusing regulations. Goofing around with your buddies and playing grab-ass in the showers could get you tarred as “demonstrating a propensity or intent to engage” and out you go. Maybe. Or would that fall under the exceptions of 654(b)(1)? Perhaps, unless evidence indicated one often engaged in such shenanigans.... Oh dear....

If one is found to have engaged in any contact, passively or otherwise (ie. as “trade”), it will be perceived as a homosexual act and grounds for dismissal. Even though the regulations appear to allow for “one-off” situations, if the investigators believe the experience falls under the definition of a homosexual act, the individual can be dismissed. Someone accused of contravening the code can’t win if it’s shown he or she engaged in any homosexual activity.

Yet a large majority of Americans approve of - or at least are not concerned with - allowing individuals to serve openly in the armed forces. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by The Boston Globe showed 79% of participants having nothing against openly gay people serving in the military.

A 2008 Washington Post/ABC News poll indicated 75% of Americans - including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives - said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.

Of course, civilian life, as the regulations point out, is quite different from military life. The military is a world unto itself and civilian views rarely carry much effect. So, what is the view within the rank and file of the American military?

A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 26% were in favour of gays and lesbians serving in the military, 37% were opposed, and 37% expressed no preference or were unsure.

72% of respondents who had experience with gay men or lesbians in their unit said that the presence of such individuals had either no impact or a positive impact on their personal morale. 67% said as much for overall unit morale.

Of those respondents uncertain whether they had served with gay or lesbian personnel, 51% thought that such unit members would have a neutral or positive effect on personal morale, while 48% thought that they would have a negative effect on unit morale. 73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel. [Data from Wikipedia]

Given the penchant of your average military type to be socially conservative, these statistics are surprising but do indicate the Pentagon is out-of-touch with its own servicemen and women. And it’s not just the rank and file who have moved to a more accepting point of view in this regard.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, along with former Senator and Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, publicly spoke against the policy in January 2007. General Shalikashvili stated, “I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces... Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.”

In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy, citing evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces and that there are over 1 million gay veterans. Nearly a year later on November 17, 2008, 104 retired generals and admirals signed a similar statement. [Stats from Wikipedia]

When Barack Obama was running for President, he went on record as being in support of repealing DADT, citing the huge costs involved in dismissing, and replacing, personnel.

However, less than a month after moving into the Oval Office, it was announced plans to repeal the policy may be delayed until as late as 2010 because Obama wanted to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon. Following that, he would then present legislation to Congress.

There appears to be some difference of opinion on who has the authority to repeal the legislation. Obama’s position is that Congress has the exclusive authority to lift the ban. However, a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara concluded it is within the authority of the executive branch (ie. the President) to discontinue the policy.

The costs involved in the removal of homosexual and bisexual personnel are staggering. Since the introduction of DADT in 1993, the military has dismissed over 13,000 individuals. While the number of discharges dropped significantly following 9/11, discharges still number over 600 per year.

Between 1994 and 2008, the United States Coast Guard dismissed a total of 113 individuals, the United States Marine Corp (USMC) dismissed a total of 655, the United States Navy dismissed 2,626, the Army 2,583, and the United States Air Force dismissed 2,139 individuals. That’s 12,961 individuals over a 15-year period, who are no longer serving their country.

It should be noted that this figure reflects only those known to having been discharged for homosexuality or who came forward to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (who conducted the survey) and does not include those who did not disclose the reasons for their discharge.

Despite common perception, it has not been servicemen who suffer the most under DADT, it is women. The New York Times reported in June 2008 that, according to information obtained by SLDN , within the Army and Air Force a disproportionate amount of women were dismissed. While women make up 14 percent of Army personnel, 46 percent of those discharged in 2007 were women. And while 20 percent of Air Force personnel are women, 49 percent of its discharges were women.

Not only have the human costs been staggering, the financial costs are as well. In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office reported $95.4 million in recruiting costs and $95.1 million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops discharged from 1994 through 2003.

In February 2006, a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission that included former Assistant Defense Secretary under the Reagan Administration, Lawrence Korb, former Defense Secretary under the Clinton Administration, William Perry, and professors from West Point, concluded that figure should be closer to $363 million. This is including $14.3 million for “separation travel” once a service member is discharged, $17.8 million for training officers, $252.4 million for training enlistees, and $79.3 million in recruiting costs.

The Democratic leader of the US Senate, majority leader Harry Reid, urged both the president and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a letter dated September 24th and released by his office, to approach Congress with recommendations on how to repeal the law.

“At a time when we are fighting two wars, I do not believe we can afford to discharge any qualified individual who is willing to serve our country,” he wrote.

The chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin, promised in July that a hearing on the issue would be held in autumn of 2009.

With files from: The Calgary Herald, Wikipedia, The New York Times, and the United States Military Code of Conduct.