"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.