As Congress Moves to End Gay Ban, Don't Let History Repeat Itself

Rep. Ellen Tauscher has just announced she'll introduce a bill to repeal the ban on open gays in the military, a momentous step that comes on the 15th anniversary of this highly unpopular policy.  While the bill has been introduced before, Democratic control of Congress and the White House means this time it has a real chance of becoming law.  

But not before the Congress--and the nation--have a protracted debate about whether to lift the ban.  The last time this all happened, at the beginning of the Clinton presidency, the policy that emerged was a disaster that pleased no one and ended up hurting, rather than helping, our troops. And the resulting political damage helped the GOP wrest control of Congress in 1994. If we want to minimize the chances of another catastrophic conversation, we must take a glance at that history.

The blueprint for the current policy was written by a panel of six admirals and generals who made up the Military Working Group, which was appointed by the Pentagon to recommend how to carry out Clinton's campaign promise to end the ban. Instead, they created "don't ask, don't tell," a policy of collective denial that requires deception in the name of "morale."  In the course of research for my new book, "Unfriendly Fire," I spoke to members of, and advisors to, that panel, and obtained surprising information about just how flawed and dishonest the creation of the policy was.

The general who initially headed the MWG, Robert Alexander, said the group didn't fully understand what "sexual orientation" even meant. "We had to define in the first few sessions what we figured they were talking about."  He said the MWG "didn't have any empirical data" so the conclusions they drew were purely "subjective." It was "very difficult to get an objective, rational review of this policy" he said. In this debate, "passion leads, and rationale follows." 

One group staffer provided a wealth of research to the flag officers in charge, but said it was never even considered. He said the policy was created "behind closed doors" by people who were totally closed to lifting the ban, and that it relied on anti-gay stereotypes and resistance to outside forces.

Charles Moskos, the renowned military sociologist and close friend of Sen. Sam Nunn, advised the MWG, and was ultimately credited as the academic architect of "don't ask, don't tell." While he said publicly that the problem with openly gay service was that it would threaten "unit cohesion," he told me privately something quite different: "Fuck unit cohesion," he said, "I don't care about that."  For Moskos, the last serious defender of "don't ask, don't tell," the ban was about the "moral right" of straight people not to be forced into intimate quarters with gays. Shortly before he died last summer, he admitted that he clung to his policy, in part, because he was afraid of disappointing his friends if he "turncoated."

Moskos also helped Sen. Nunn, the Congressional architect of the ban, orchestrate his notorious hearings in 1993. According to witnesses and activists I spoke with, Nunn's hearings were "rigged" from the start. Judith Stiehm, another sociologist who testified on the academic panel of the hearings, arrived to find that Moskos and Nunn "had already found an agreement" about the policy before the hearings began. Nunn even removed two witnesses when he learned they would oppose the gay ban, retired colonel Lucian Truscott III and former senator Barry Goldwater, and replaced them with a virulently homophobic general who was not an academic at all.

The MWG was also supposed to take recommendations from working groups convened by the individual services. Rear Admiral John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy was a participant in the talks about whether to lift the ban in 1993. Hutson told me the assessment of gay service was "based on nothing.  It wasn't empirical, it wasn't studied, it was completely visceral, intuitive." The policy, he said, was rooted in "our own prejudices and our own fears." Hutson now says "don't ask, don't tell" was a "moral passing of the buck."

Another advisor to the MWG was Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, a deeply homophobic evangelical who became vice president of the Family Research Council.  While Maginnis admitted that he found homosexuality "morally repugnant," he cast the question of gay service in terms of "unit cohesion" for what he called "political reasons"--because he knew this approach would be more effective than moral tirades against equal treatment for gays. Maginnis, who believes gays are "unstable" hedonists who can't control themselves and are tainted by something called "gay bowel syndrome," was only the tip of the iceberg: in fact the "unit cohesion" rationale was an elaborate strategy created by a network of evangelical military officers and supporters who knowingly sold an anti-gay policy rooted in religion as though it were essential to protecting national security. And for too long, the nation drank the coolaid.

What all this shows is just how dangerous it is to allow the debate to be conducted by ill-informed or disingenuously motivated participants. Whoever takes the lead in framing the conversation--whether the Obama White House or the Congress--must insist on an honest, research-based approach.

Thankfully, the prospects for this seem good. Nearly every last person who created, supported, rationalized or otherwise propped up discrimination in the military has either reversed course or died (or both), or, in the case of the religious right, had their cover blown.

Colin Powell has called for the policy's "review," a polite way of saying it's time to move on. And this week, the Palm Center is reporting more dominoes are falling: In a letter which first appears in my book, the former senator goes further than he did last year in public remarks echoing Powell's call to "review" the policy: he now says the ban is actually "getting in the way" of military readiness. And not only has Gen. John Shalikashvili, Colin Powell's successor as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for repeal, but Adm. William Crowe, Powell's predecessor, told the Palm Center before he died that he now favors repeal too. More than 100 more retired admirals and generals have joined them, signing a document that says it's time to end the ban. 
 
Sure, the effort to repeal the gay ban carries political risks.  But as Rep. Ellen Tauscher has said, "it is always the right time to right a wrong."

Nathaniel Frank is author of "Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America," and senior research fellow at the Palm Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Comments

[randyjet]

The military has the right to decide who it hires and who it will not. The needs of the military come first,noi matter what. There is NO reason to change the current policy which allows gays to serve, as long as they keep their sex lives private. If they wish to get out of the service, they simply tell their commander that they are gay, and they are out. NO other service members have that option. It is a very nice preference to have if you don't want another third tour in Iraq. If they wish to stay in, they can. The military does NOT do the old style gay hunting that CID used to do.

[IronValkyrie]

Perhaps you can provide us with some hard evidence to suggest that gay soldiers are less effective than straight soldiers? Some evidence, perhaps, to prove that soldiers that are openly gay are a detriment to their unit?

Some evidence not based in antiquated religious conjecture and fear based opinion?

[MSGH]

"Cohesion of the unit"? The ancient Greeks thought differently--they thought homosexuality promoted the cohesion of the unit. The ideal shield-mates, they held, were a young man and an older man who were lovers. The older man had the experience in battle, and the younger man had the faster reflexes and greater strength. Their mutual love ensured that they would take care of one another in battle, and a band of such couples made for a very cohesive unit. It worked pretty well at Marathon.

[LorettaSingbiel]

"More than 100 more retired admirals and generals have joined them, signing a document that says it's time to end the ban."

"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their countrymen!"

In the mid 60's, this was a common sentence to practice in my high school typing class.
In the mid 60's, this was common SENSE to practice, as the struggle for Civil Rights progressed.

It stuck in my memory all these years ... this common sentence and SENTIMENT to practice in a nation conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

[rejoiceinit]

This whole debate is so ridiculous because gays are already IN the military so all we are really talking about is their right to simply live their love lives openly. Americans supposedly love their troops sooooo much--I defy anyone to argue in the faces of these most honorable service members that they don't deserve to have this right. Pathetic.

[jackbutler5555]

Forty-five years ago when I was in the service, I could care less with whom I was taking a shower. I didn't know anybody back then who would've given a damn. Of course, if you got soldiers whipped about it, there were enough latent homophobes that could work themselves into a lather -- especially in the shower with a bar of soap.. But the overwhelming truth of our existence back then was that we were, in fact, showering with gay men. It would have been statistically impossible not to have done so. And, get this: nothing happened. I suspect that would be the case right now. Or, do you think homophobia is worse now? (The term, unit cohesiveness, is an amusing term to be thrust into this discussion.)

[hazellily]

I think you just made the opposite point you wanted to state.
No gay was going to approach you because nobody knew they were there.
My only problem with Gays serving is that I have seen how perfectlly capable and conformist (you do need the ppl in the military to conform to code for discipline reasons) they are until a flambuoyant leadership personality appears.......then its feathered bras for everybody and 'who gives a damn'. The discipline in the military barracks has taken a real dive since your day.....believe me... and I am not sure this would help the situation.

[LorettaSingbiel]

"The discipline in the military barracks has taken a real dive since your day.....believe me... and I am not sure this would help the situation."

It's taken a real dive because the military has opened their recruitment doors to enlistees with criminal records...all the while closing their doors to open gays.

[IronValkyrie]

Pardon me, but my sister is in the USMC, and I'm pretty sure she'd take issue with the discipline in the barracks statement.

Military life, and lifestyle, is about regiment, respect, and duty above all else. So while your feathered bra analogy might work out well for a Paulie Shore movie, it falls down badly in face of reality.

[jackbutler5555]

"I think you just made the opposite point you wanted to state.
No gay was going to approach you because nobody knew they were there. "

hazellily: That's a logic that eludes me. In civilian life today, we know there are gays, none of whom has approached me. But, if one did, why would you think I would have a problem turning him down? And on what basis do you conclude that that turndown wouldn't be enough?

[AlwaysaLiberal]

I'm pretty sure the ban will be lifted. The only think that bothers me is the senate, because Reid needs to grow some balls. Rahm Emmanuel needs to go there and be tough. Emmanuel is like a modern day LBJ in many ways. I'm glad Obama picked him, he really does know how to get things done.

[kwijibo]

The writer omitted an important credential of Barry Goldwater. Besides being a senator, he was a two-star general in the Air Force Reserve.

[randyjet]

He also never served overseas, nor did he serve in a combat unit, nor did he know much about the living conditions or the front. He also served when gay sex was ILLEGAL, any homosexual acts were punished severely, and you were courtmartialed for being gay. In WWII they were so short of bodies they took any warm body that could walk. Thus gays were not an issue since they wanted everybody they could get. In his experiences, he saw on problem. I would agree with him based on his situation. Unfortunately, that was nor is typical of the military now.

I would agree that having gays serving openly would not be a problem if it were like a regular job. The FACT is that it is NOT a regular job. i see no problem with gays as cops, fire fighters, etc.. since they do their jobs and go home. GIs don't do that.

[kwijibo]

Has Democrat Sen. Sam Nunn repudiated his position against gays in the military? Who was more vehement than he in opposing Clinton's proposed policy of allows gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly?

Ultimately, Bill Clinton signed not only Don't Ask, Don't Tell into law but the Defense of Marriage Act. We frequently hear that George Bush and the religious right are the real enemies of homosexuals, yet it was Bill Clinton who did the heavy lifting. Pres. Obama's advisor and supporter, Sen. Sam Nunn was the driving force. Even assuming that George Bush wanted such a policy, his work had already been done for him by Democrats in Congress and a Democrat president.

Obama will never go for it and risk his political capital at a time when he's trying to accomplish real change for all Americans. It will be dead from the start. Ultimately what it comes down to is that there's no right to serve in the US military, therefore no-one's rights are being denied if they are denied service in the military for any number of reasons, including being gay.

[stryker]

So, gays and lesbians don't have the right to die for our country? People are denied service in the military for mental, psychological, criminal, physical, and health reasons. Not for a God-given sexual orientation that has nothing to do with how well a person can defend his or her country.

[Peggy Youdelman]

Jibo you are wrong. Pres. Obama will go for it and it will pass. He is not like Dubya A LIAR, when he says he will do something he means it.

[Wileynight]

Senator Barry Goldwater had the last word: "I don't care if a soldier's gay as long as he can shoot straight."

[stryker]

I wonder if Barry would even be accepted by the repubs now, seeing as how was not against abortion (his daughter had one he condoned) and not anti-gay (his favorite grandson is gay and Barry had no qualms about gays serving). Guees the conservatives would brand him some kinda commie socialist pinko. Don't you just love how they've brought the 50's back?

[MAH1952]

Of course Senator Goldwater would be aghast at the current crop os so-called Conservative Republicans. Like the Holy Roman Empire they are neither conservatives nor Republicans.

[BarryS]

The last time, big brave Powell and Nunn ranted on an on about showers. If the discourse shrinks to this level again, we are in real trouble. Interestingly enough these same people aren't afraid to allow CONVICTED FELONS to be in the barracks with them.

How really bizarre.

[karmatt77]

In a democracy that prides itself on giving liberty and freedom, I can only ask why would we need a law to protect anybody when they are already protected under our constitution. Anybody who thinks a human being in this country doesn't deserve freedom is a traitor. Freedom for all or freedom for NONE.

[donpalmsprings]

The problem with the don't ask don't tell policy is that it was decided on by religionists, who have no place in making government policy. Please keep the separation of church and state or start charging property and income taxes on those businesses.

[verdadero]

The reality here is that we have millions of very qualified men and women who are not allowed to contribute to the military without denying their essential nature. We have millions of men and women who are not allowed to received the benefits of serving in the military. We have millions of men and women who are not provided equal rights. We have millions of men and women who are paying for the military with their taxes but are not allowed to make a living by being in the military.

This whole mess is a mark against the preamble to our constitution for gays and lesbians do not have the right to their pursuit of happiness unless they deny their essential nature, and proves that America is not the land of equal rights for everyone. It currently is the land of special rights for certain people who are prejudiced against other people. In this respect we are no different from India with its caste system.

[MathIsTruth]

One thing that really bothers me is that once the military made the whole issue to be about "morale", they were still allowed to cast the issue as being a "gay problem".

However, that is merely a "blame the victim" approach. If the military is to claim that their policy is not anti-gay, but rather is only kept in place to maintain morale, then it immediately becomes obvious that the problem is NOT "gays in the military".

The problem is: Homophobes in the military.

That is to say that if a military unit has poor morale because it contains a gay and a homophobe, who is the one causing the problem? Obviously, it the one with the irrational dislike of gays.

[stryker]

One of our big problems with the war in Iraq is that many, if not most of those military interpretors who spoke arabic were gay and were forced to leave the service. Thanks to homophobes who make life more difficult.

[drayak]

This is one area on which I've been torn. I served for 24 years active duty and some of the people I worked for and some that worked for me where gay (I use this term universally for male/female homosexuals). Some where good some not, as in everything in life. I still have trouble on living arrangements, do you house them in dorms with others of the same sex? Do you house them in a dorm set aside for gays? How do you approach issues of offense being taken when a gay couple is assigned housing and the people next door don't want them there? What will happen when one gay person on a base/post is caught abusing someones son or daughter?

I guess, the answer is it will all be worked out. We as a people have overcome a lot of issues we found offensive at one time or another in our lives and today, we think nothing of it. Bottom line, let them enlist or seek commissions, if they violate other parts of the UCMJ, kick them out, or jail them, then kick them out. No special favors sought or given. We will endure.

[MathIsTruth]

"I still have trouble on living arrangements, do you house them in dorms with others of the same sex? Do you house them in a dorm set aside for gays?"

There are already gays in the military (who are keeping their sexual orientation silent). So the problem is apparently already solved. Why would you put gays in a separate dorm? Do you think homosexuality is a contagious disease?

"How do you approach issues of offense being taken when a gay couple is assigned housing and the people next door don't want them there?"

The same way you deal with a black couple assigned housing next to a KKK couple. You address the problem that there are bigots in the military by dealing with the bigots.

"What will happen when one gay person on a base/post is caught abusing someones son or daughter?"

The same way you deal with a straight person abusing someone's son or daughter. The problem is abuse, not homo- or hetero-sexuality.

[bowserbois]

We should have our own space that we would be "housed" in and it would be FABULOUS!!!!!!!!!

[verdadero]

This has been mentioned several times in this thread, "where do we house (THEM)". Usually it is a comment from someone who admits that they served with gays who served honorably and well. I find it a little incredulous that the same person who served for a long time with various gay men and lesbians would even write such a thing. The short answer is we house (THEM) in the same way we housed (YOU).

As for the "what happens when one of (THEM) abuses some child on the base? We would do the same thing we do when some one like (YOU) abuses a child on any base.

All of these kinds of statements are simply Red Herrings tossed out to frighten people into believing that all homosexuals are predators or they can't be "housed" with so called "normal" folk.

[jacko88]

Stop concern trolling. Gay people are not more likely to abuse anyone than straight people, and require no special handler gloves. It's a nonissue.

[eternalkerri]

you served 24 years active duty? and you have concerns how people will react? remember the phrase, "shut up and soldier"?

basically it means. who gives a ratsbehind how you feel and your concerns and your feelings. we tell you do do something, you shut the heck up and do it because its a perfectly legal order.

REAL soldiers understand that. Screw how you feel, just deal.

[LorettaSingbiel]

"How do you approach issues of offense being taken when a gay couple is assigned housing and the people next door don't want them there?"

The GLBT Community has FINALLY won their struggle for EQUAL Housing Protection! The neighbors can get over their homophobic hysteria, or skedaddle somewhere's they're SURE there's no QUEER.

What will happen when one gay person on a base/post is caught abusing someones son or daughter?

Hopefully that gay person will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The same goes for a straight person.