IGF CultureWatch

"I am not feeling safe at all now and seek legal advice on what the possibilities are and where I can get help."

I received this plea a few days ago from a bisexual in the U.S. military. Fortunately for him, there is more help available today than when Frank Kameny, a combat veteran of the Second World War, began fighting against the military gay ban in the early 1960s. Back then, anti-gay U.S. Government policies covered civil service and security clearances as well as military service. In about 1962, Kameny posted leaflets in the State Department and many other places with the message, "Say nothing. Sign nothing. Get counsel. Fight back." Today there is the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, so I was able to tell my troubled correspondent, "Say nothing. Sign nothing. Call SLDN."

While victories have since been won on civil service and security clearances, the anti-gay military policy remains stubbornly in place. Although it became statutory in 1993, the basic policy is much older. "I encountered it," Kameny recalls, "when I enlisted in the Army on May 18,1943, three days before my 18th birthday. I was asked whether I had homosexual tendencies, and I said no. I have resented for 63 years that I had to lie to serve my country."

One of the resources at www.sldn.org is SLDN's "Survival Guide" to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass." It emphasizes the legal rights that service members have under Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the importance of getting an experienced attorney: "A wrong word can mean the difference between staying in or getting kicked out, saving pension or educational benefits versus forfeiting them, even freedom or prison. Signing the wrong thing could mean a waiver ... of legal rights."

The guide includes some sobering observations: "Service members confide in military chaplains at their own risk." "The government considers itself free to introduce illegally-obtained evidence in discharge cases and there is no way to keep that evidence out." "There is no doctor-patient confidentiality in the military."

With considerable understatement, SLDN writes, "On July 19, 1993, former President Clinton proclaimed that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' would put an end to witch hunts. Nevertheless, witch hunts continue in some commands." Well, yes. In this election year, it is important to remember that the execrable law Clinton signed was a bipartisan affair.

In 2003, Clinton wrote to SLDN, "When I proposed lifting the ban on gays in the military, I met strong political opposition. In fact, the Senate voted against my policy with a veto-proof majority." If that statement is not an outright lie, it is at least a lie by omission, because a proposed measure that would have given the President the authority to determine the policy was defeated by less than veto-proof numbers. Thus Clinton could have forced a compromise had he stuck to his guns. Here we see the formerly powerful revising the record to make himself look like a better leader than he was.

The longer the war on terrorism lasts, and the more gay veterans come out, the more untenable the current exclusionary policy is. Similar bans have been abandoned by virtually all of our allies, leaving America increasingly isolated in its backward stance. Not only does the current policy impede military readiness, it places prejudice ahead of our national security. How else can one explain the forcible discharge of several gay Arabic interpreters despite the dire need for their skills?

If gays harm unit cohesion and morale, then why have gay-related discharges decreased since 2001? As SLDN says, "Honor is a Core Value in the military. The policy's requirement that lesbian, gay or bisexual service members live in the closet, lying daily, evading, dissembling and hiding their sexual orientation from peers, superiors and subordinates, directly conflicts with the Service's basic values." Approximately 10,000 gay American patriots have been discharged since 1993. At a time of war, when our volunteer forces are stretched so thin that stop-loss orders are issued, it makes no sense that we have kicked out 10,000 highly skilled and motivated warriors. Whose side are the brass and the policymakers on? Indeed, barring the services of so many with much to offer gives aid and comfort to our enemies, which is one of the definitions of treason in Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution.

Speaking of whose side people are on, our gay service members do not need false allies who use the gay ban merely as an excuse to bash a military that they despise in any case. Years ago, at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's annual Creating Change Conference, lesbian comedian Kate Clinton included this line in her comedy routine: "They say that gays will harm the military. Good!" She got whoops and applause from the crowd. The interests of gays in uniform can hardly be served by people who so gleefully throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Our gay brothers and sisters in military service, in addition to the normal risks of their profession, face threats to their lives and careers from within their own ranks and at the hands of their own government. Those of us who truly respect their service and their sacrifice owe it to them to keep our voices raised against this insane policy, and to support those like SLDN who help them.