What’s this right in the midst of the Great Gay Bash of ’93? Out of the general confusion and consternation over the issue of homosexuals in the military comes what sounds suspiciously like a voice of reason, or at least moderation.
Georgia’s Sam Nunn seemed to edge momentarily close to calm discussion the other day. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he’s been acting as if the armed forces of the United States were under siege by Queer Nation or some such outfit, and vowing to resist. But as hearings on the issue opened, Sen. Nunn allowed as how the temporary policy now in effect-not asking any questions about a recruit’s sexuality-could prove the basis for a permanent policy.
Without asking such personal questions, the military should be able to deal satisfactorily with any inappropriate sexual behavior-homo-, hetero-, bi- or a-. In short, why not treat homosexuals like everybody else? A trooper’s conduct, not sexual identity, would be what mattered. The law should be no respecter of persons, or their sexual orientation.
Of course the military code would have to be changed, and any other forms of discrimination against homosexuals based solely on sexual identity-rather than behavior-dropped. The current stopgap of a policy also includes a freeze on prosecution of homosexuals for the “crime” of being homosexual. Surely Sen. Nunn does not propose to invite homosexuals into the armed services, no questions asked, and then spring the trap and court-martial them for being homosexual. After all, he is said to be an honorable man.
Another service rendered by this hearing: It provided a calm forum in which to examine the usual Parade of Horribles trotted out at any mention of lifting the military’s ban on homosexuals. “What about family housing?” Sen. Nunn asked at one point. The answer from the expert witness was expert in the best way-plain, simple, and insightful: “When society accepts that legally, I think the military would have to take a look at it and see if, in fact, that would cause problems. But right now I don’t see it as an issue because it is not something that society generally accepts.”
That answer came from Lawrence J. Korb, who was an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, and who generally shed the most light on a subject that already has received more than enough heat. If the armed forces are going to remain American, they’re going to reflect to some degree the changes in American society.
But what effect would lifting the ban on homosexuals have on military esprit, unity, effectiveness? Well, Colin Powell isn’t chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff today because the armed services refused to risk racial integration. Korb found “no convincing evidence that changing the current policy would undermine unit cohesion any more than the other social changes that society has asked the armed forces to make over the past 50 years.”
The military has made those changes, often enough, with better grace and effect than many other segments of American society. Maybe it has to do with an emphasis on leadership, command and performance-rather than social custom and The Way We’ve Always Done Things.
The results of a policy in academe or politics or law may always remain debatable, but it’s usually clear which side has won a war. That puts a premium on performance-not social status, skin color or sexual identity. The prospect of being killed wonderfully concentrates the mind. And abilities.
Of course, the psychiatrists we will always have with us. The head shrink at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research testified that homosexuality “could well be an issue that polarizes the group and threatens its unity.” The doctor’s phraseology had a familiar ring to this old summer-camp counselor, but it took me awhile to realize why. Then it came to me:
More Top Picks Best Spelling Tools For Dyslexic Kids
The first time an eager young camper came running up with some misshapen little piece of what might once have been metal in his hand, and asked if he had found an Indian arrowhead, like a dummy I answered: “I don’t know.” That’s when the director of the program took me aside for a little talk, and explained that the correct answer would have been: “Why, Johnny, this could very well be a genuine Indian arrowhead!”
Of course homosexuality could polarize a military unit and threaten its unity. So could almost any social issue in the absence of strong leadership and clear policy,. That doesn’t mean it would-not if authority is exercised and policy made unmistakable.
People in the service must learn how to take orders and overcome certain fears. Those having to do with homosexuality may prove among the lesser ones compared to, say, the wholesome natural reluctance to get shot at. That kind of concern tends to put divisive issues in perspective.
A little perspective is what this Era of Ill Feelings issue could use. And maybe a decent respect for the boundary between the public and private spheres. The general tone of these hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee was welcome. It was the sound of grownups talking.