The Road to Gays in the Military Runs through Iowa

Last week, just as Iowa decided it was ready to let gay couples marry, Rachel Maddow asked Colin Powell if the nation was ready to let gay patriots serve openly and honestly in the military. Powell was one of a tiny group of powerful men who were single-handedly responsible for preserving the gay ban in 1993 when Bill Clinton sought to end it. As part of his Party-crossing endorsement of Barack Obama for president, Powell said last year it was time to "review" the "don't ask, don't tell" policy but has gone no further.

Amazingly, in his answer last week Powell turned the clock back to 1993. Repeating his own shibboleths from that year, Powell said the military is "a unique institution with rules and regulations" that would never pass "constitutional muster if it was in civilian society." Because the military requires "living in close proximity" and soldiers "are told whom you're going to live with," and because it is such an important institution of American power, Powell said, "we have to be careful when we change this policy."

Powell's failure of leadership has long disappointed many of us. And it isn't helping his friend Barack Obama on this issue, who is increasingly likely to face a deeply divided military community because of the silence or antagonism of leaders like Powell and over 1000 retired officers who are now urging Obama to continue throwing out mission-critical specialists because they're gay.

But more important, Powell's comments make no sense. For starters, if the military gets to tell soldiers who they'll live with, why can't it tell them they have to live with gays? And as Iowa's movement on same-sex marriage shows, the last remaining argument for the military's gay ban--that young men in the nation's heartland could never accept serving alongside gays--has been totally dismantled.

Here's how the road to--and out of--"don't ask, don't tell" runs through Iowa. Powell says that the unique nature of the military, and its role in defending America's national security, mean it can trample rights that civilian institutions never could. This is the doctrine known as "judicial deference" to the military, and there are times when it is proper for the courts to defer to military judgment. But "judicial deference" does not give the military a blank check to do whatever it wants. Instead, the courts must determine if a given action has a "rational relationship" to a "compelling governmental interest," and can only defer if they decide it does. So far, federal courts have indeed determined that banning open gays from service is a compelling governmental interest, even though no research has ever shown any detriment whatsoever to the military by openly gay service. Wisely, a court's interpretation of the meaning of "rational" and "compelling" evolves as the culture evolves, allowing the courts to stay in sync with an ever-changing reality.

Enter Iowa.

In 1988, the state's Republican caucus placed Pat Robertson ahead of George H.W. Bush, even though the Christian Coalition founder blamed natural disasters on gays and spoke in tongues. Twenty years later, the state's high court has unanimously ruled that denying gays equal protection can on longer be seen to further an "important governmental objective" and that such exclusion is "without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

Yet the same determination by federal courts in upholding the ban on gay troops rested on a cultural debate where Iowa figured prominently. One colonel, for instance, said in 1993 that he didn't think gays would "ever be openly accepted in the military" by "corn-fed guys from Iowa." In fact, the whole apparatus of anti-gay discrimination in the military is built on the story-line--never proven--that 18-year-olds from Iowa and Kansas are homophobes who can't tolerate serving with gays. Former Senator John Warner said most recruits are "coming out of what are usually small towns, and high school environments" where they are taught by parents and in Sunday School that homosexuality is wrong. "In their own simple way of thinking it through," he said of these idealized small-town men, "they may just be right." Warner used this romantic vision of small-town America, presumably free of the messy burdens of homosexuality, to endorse the intolerance he claimed not to have.

But the day Iowa decides that gays are just like everyone else signals an end to the military's rationale that it must exclude gays in order to protect the morale of our heartland youth. This is not just a cultural argument; it's a legal argument: the only Constitutional grounds for denying gays the right to serve is that, given the culture of our heartland, which draws the bulk of our military recruits, national security requires the exclusion of gays. Iowa's unanimous Supreme Court decision only echoes--with grand symbolism--what polls both in and outside the military have said for the last five years: that whatever intolerance the nation used to have toward gays and lesbians has fallen to a sufficiently minimal and contained degree, that there is no longer any basis--if ever there was--for banning gays from service.

So what to make of Colin Powell? When the general described last fall why he was endorsing Barack Obama for president, I fought back tears. The son of Jamaican immigrants had become the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and knew something about both racism in America and the power of the American dream to transcend it. Early in his career, he wrote that the military "affords the opportunity for advancement that regrettably is not in every part of our society," but that he hoped would "spread to all parts of our society so that only achievement and performance will be the basis for advancement."

In endorsing Obama, Powell praised him as "transformational," "aspirational" and "inclusive." And in response to charges that Obama is a Muslim, Powel spoke out movingly not only against the false charge, but against the implication that somehow being Muslim was the worst thing in the world: "The really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America." In that statement, Powell didn't only defend Obama, he defended all of America, and what it stands for.

Powell's experience as an African American surely made him more mindful of the victimization of Muslim Americans. The experience of being black and being Muslim in America are quite different, but as someone who has suffered from racial discrimination, Powell was able to notice and oppose an ugly episode of discrimination against other victims beyond his own group.

Not so gay Americans. By repeating ad nauseam that the service of open gays would harm "order and discipline," and would be "difficult to accommodate," Powell, like Senator Warner, legitimized prejudice in the ranks. Unlike his moving comments about Muslim Americans, Powell said it was not for him to "make a moral judgment" about whether being gay was "a correct lifestyle or not." His remarks rationalized his own failure to support equal treatment. It was what Admiral John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, has called a "moral passing of the buck."

Now imagine what true moral leadership might have looked like. To the question, is someone in the military gay, and is that okay? Powell might have answered this way: "The really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being gay in this country? The answer's no, that's not America." In that statement, which Powell has yet to make, he would have defended not just gay Americans, but all of America, and what it stands for.

Comments

[roblabrousse]

Has there ever been a survey among the enlisted personnel in all the armed forces about whether openly gay men and women would adversely affect the performance of these forces? It would seem the best way to go in order to understand the situation. The upper level officers would not have the same experience as the the common enlisted personnel. So how can they have practical knowledge?

[ckevans]

I absolutely agree with Nathaniel Frank's views on gays in the military.

But I am disturbed by the following phrase:

"even though the Christian Coalition founder blamed natural disasters on gays and spoke in tongues."

Speaking in tongues is NOT the same thing as "blaming natural disasters on gays." Speaking in tongues or glossolalia is a normal worship practice for millions of people around the world, mostly in Pentecostal Christian denominations, but also in some other religions. Psychological research has shown that people who speak in tongues are NOT mentally ill or disordered in any way, just as that research has shown the same for lesbian and gay persons. Though at the present time most Pentecostal denominations have heterosexist or anti-gay theologies, that is not a necessary link, and there are many gay and lesbian people who themselves speak in tongues as part of their personal religious practice. Troy Perry, the founder of the first gay supportive Christian denomination in the USA, was raised as a Pentecostal and still speaks in tongues.

So let's not perpetuate anti-Pentecostal prejudice while we are denouncing anti-gay prejudice. Pat Robertson's speaking in tongues is not the problem; his stupid anti-gay beliefs weren't expressed as part of his glossolalia.

[papatonyinsd]

I was in the Navy from 1975 through 1979. I was openly gay during the last two and a half years. And, I mean, I was OPENLY GAY. As in, going on and off the ship in full Tom of Finland-style leather (I was a real punk, six foot five and BIG). This was during the days of Harvey Milk, Anita Bryant and Dan Briggs being in the news on a daily basis. I'd have utter strangers on the ship come up to me saying "Ooooh - That Anita Bryant makes me SO MAD!" and I'd see this as an attempt to open up a dialog.
I was never seriously hassled during that time. Gay rights was the new Civil Rights, and the bigots were on the run.
Then, when Reagan came in, with his horrid Moral Majority haters, everything changed. Military gays were hounded mercilessly. The Rand Corporation interviewed hundreds of gay military people, and came to the conclusion that hatred (or tolerance) of gays comes from the top down.
So, we now have a different Commander in Chief. Mandate that gays are welcome, and fire anybody who disagrees. If they don't like it, let 'em retire and grumble. They're old, and in the way.

[BannedFromCommenting]

I still never understand fear of gays in the military. If the other soldier is not gay, nothing is going to happen. And I think gay men are like 99% less likely to rape a male soldier than a straight male soldier to rape a female soldier. What do they fear? that on the battle front a guy will hold his gun with only one hand while covering his bum with the other? Its plain stupid!

[justkeepswimming]

For what it's worth, Iowa Republicans are as bad as they ever were on gay rights, it's just that the Dems have taken over.

[french62]

AMEN!!

[AirForceBlue]

The road to fairness goes thru thousands of cities in our justice-based land, whether it be Philadelphia, Hershey, Chicago, Des Moines, San Francisco, et al, the time has come.

[bighat]

Let the gays serve. Front lines or whatever they choose. Is Powell thinking of the people that volunteer now for the armed forces and is worried volunteerism may go down if gays are allowed? Many do not understand that once you are accepted in the militiary you are govt property. Even a soldier who goes on vacation and gets sunburned so bad that he missed a day of work can be fined or confined.

As of today the wars we are in do not affect the american population. We just see it on TV. It is not a WWII situation.

If a draft should be reinstated and gays are left out the gay population may expand expotentially

[zenlikejen]

**If a draft should be reinstated and gays are left out the gay population may expand expotentially**

Ha! Yep...because you know gays only raise gay children much like straights only raise straight children.

.....good grief.......

[BannedFromCommenting]

If they drafted again, my nephews would become "gay". Who wants to go to war for nothing? For oil for fat white pasty men?

[CJ1]

Zen, he means the number of people claiming to be gay would drastically increase so they could avoid going to war...

[missouriwatcher]

I served 8 years in the military, and during that time did encounter some gays and lesbians in uniform. As far as I can tell, they did as outstanding a job as anyone else there. Gen. Powell's fear about what might happen because soldiers (airmen, sailors, marines) live in close quarters, has no basis in the real world. Of all the gays/lesbians that I have known--and there have been enough that I think I can safely say this--only 1 ever hit on me, a straight. Most would not dream of making any advances toward a straight, anymore than a straight would make advances toward a gay/lesbian. In short, there exists no real reason why both gays and lesbians should not have the right to serve their country in uniform, if they feel so inclined.

[ChicagoMolly]

Thing one: The real irony of Mr. Powell's answer to Ms. Maddow is of course that before President Truman ordered the services to integrate racially, Mr. Powell would never have had a chance to become a general, let alone Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before the order came down the generals and admirals all gave the exact same arguments against allowing full equality to African-Americans that they now give about gays. The. Same. Ones. But when the President said "Do It", they had to salute and say "Sir, Yes, Sir!" and make it so. And of course it wasn't all Kumbaya right from the git go. It took work. But it happened. And Colin Powell owes his career to it.

Thing two: What's the deal with "corn-fed guys from Iowa" anyway? Corn? Really? The only thing I can think of is Dr John Kellogg, who invented corn flakes to feed his wealthy clients at his health spa in Battle Creek Michigan at the turn of the last century as a kind of anti-aphrodisiac.

[french62]

Which is why President Clinton shall forever remain tarnished with one of the most dastardly and spineless acts as Commander in Chief approving the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. A pox on his house for such cowardice.

I served in the military for 8 years and was awarded numerous recognition, honors, and medals. People knew of my homosexuality but for most it was of no concern. For those who were bothered by the mere presence of a gay man, I have to question their courage to confront their bigotry and fears, and just maybe, their internalized homophobia.

Finally, if Obama has a shred of self-respect, honesty, and truth in all the pretty words he used to get elected, then he would be THE Commander in Chief to set the record straight (pun intended), and openly integrate homosexuals within the armed forces of this nation.

Come on, don't be afraid, JUST DO IT:-)

[SJBrown]

Homosexuals are not segregated in the military. Such dramatic overstatement.

[SJBrown]

How do you know that General Powell wouldn't have had a chance to become a general or CJCS if it weren't for Truman? They didn't make the same arguments. No one is arguing for segregation of gays/lesbians in the military with a heterosexual in the command position. General Powell's success isn't based on his race and you shouldn't limit him to his race.

Get your history straight. There are no segregated forces in the military by race or sexual orientation.

[CJ1]

I think you are purposely trying to interpret what Molly said in a obtusely strict manner in order to make a non-sequiter point. Essentially, racist people said they would not sleep, eat, or fight next to a black person--in that GENERAL sense, it is the same argument. And I'm sure if there was a way, they would try segregation of the orientations (lol--the gay brigade!).

[CJ1]

p.s. And there most certainly WERE segregated forces in the military...hello. Tuskaloosa (sp?) airmen ring a bell? Yes, I noticed you said "are no..." but not sure why... twisting her/Molly's words when they are right above your own is...very right wing of you! LOL!

[Nathaniel Frank - Huffpost Blogger]

A few more replies to the threads about my post, for which I thank you all!

First, some imply that, if someone doesn’t have military experience, he has no right to discuss the military. Serving in the military gives you a unique perspective, but it doesn’t necessarily give you the right perspective, or the last word on this topic. many in the military were wrong on racial integration, women in combat, wrong in thinking the liberation of Iraq would be a cakewalk. Sometimes military people are right, sometimes they’re wrong

To suggest I should be disqualified from speaking about this issue because I haven’t served is nonsense. I’ve just spent 10 years writing a book on this topic, and every last bit of research I could find on this issue is in there, including amble evidence of military members themselves who have come to see that the gay ban is not necessary to preserve unit cohesion.

Which brings me to a reiteration of a final point: no one is confusing a court ruling with the will of the people. The Iowa ruling was simply a symbolic marker of how far the nation has come in its attitudes toward homosexuality. That those attitudes in and outside the military have changed dramatically is also amply documented in my book. Equally important, the research shows that we don’t need to get rid of every last drop of homophobia for openly gay service to work.

[BCubedReg]

Fret not, as a 22 year Marine (retired) I agree with everything you said in your post and subsequent follow-on statement.

Knowledge and Wisdom are the cure for bigotry in all its forms.

[french62]

Having served in the US Army and recently married to my partner of 17 years, I want to say thanks for fighting the good fight. Homosexuals are going to win their struggle for full inclusion far, far, faster than the black community was able to do. They have a unique and difficult history in the United States.

Nearly daily you hear or read of victories for the "homosexual agenda." Being a full participant for the agenda, let me briefly summarize it for all the Know-Nothings who won't or can't get it:

Item #1: EQUALITY
Item #2 please see item #1

Well, there it is as simple as can be stated.

Have a great day!

[Steamboater]

You always have those who think only those who have served in the military have the right to say what's good or not good for the military, not even bothering to think that the military serves by the will of civilians. Such criticism of any civilian criticism extends to war as well with too many ignorant high school drop outs in the military believing that no one but them has a right to say if we should go to war or not.

It always amazes me that heterosexuals in the military who bash Gays and want them discriminated against are so afraid of being in the same barracks with them. If that's the mindset of the military, this country is in deep trouble.

[dumitch]

You're surprised by Powell who only endorsed Obama because he was seeking a way back into favor after his now famous speech in front of the UN where he lied not only to America, but the world. It had nothing to do with Obama (who I'm not convinced believes Don't Ask Don't Tell should be gotten rid of) and his inspirational character.

[SJBrown]

Writing the book isn't the same as serving. That said, you can have an informed opinion.

I'd like to understand how it would work. In the military and even federal govt. the issue is about tolerance and not discriminating, it isn't about affirming. The military is a 24/7. I don't know what openly gay looks like. You are a soldier or airman or officer. The military has rules about associations. How did you envision those rules would be written for openly gay/lesbians? I haven't seen a proposal for the actual solution, is it in your book?

[french62]

There you go again Brownie,

Your ignorance is showing! Let me explain, having served for 8 years in the military. There is something called the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ) which is the guideline for ALL members of the armed forces. If homosexuals were to serve "openly" the very same UCMJ would apply regarding appropriate/legal behavior of military members regardless of sexual orientation. Therefore, if a homosexual were to break one of the provisions of the UCMJ, the same consequences would naturally apply to that individual. This is NOT rocket science!!

By the way, this is what "openly gay" looks like: BOO!!!!

[UltraClassic]

Yes, there is a difference between the people and a judge. That being said, it's time to give homosexuals a fair shake and let them serve. They should understand that their conduct will be on the skyline and although they should be allowed to serve openly, misconduct of a sexual nature won't be accepted.

In otherwords, no hitting up on fellow servicemen in the ranks. The homosexual should also understand that it's about the country, the service and the uniform, not about them and that they will be held to the same standards as other servicemembers. I have no doubt that most of these people will do a fine job.

[liberaldemdave]

good point, ultraclassic...you think that the uniform code of conduct will be applied equally to both straight and gay servicemembers? it's highly unlikely, and comments like yours just bring that to light. gays and lesbians are no more likely to "hit up" on fellow same gender service members as opposite sex service members.

it sounds, to me, as though our hetero brothers and sisters are the ones needing to do some growing up.

[zenlikejen]

As a former reservist who served in Desert Storm (and hadn't actually come out at the time being only 19) - I'm glad you are willing to give the gays a "fair shake" and allow them to serve.

That being said, what is it that makes you believe that we can't control ourselves once in uniform? What makes you think we need to be told not to "hit on" anyone? During my tour, I saw so many straight MARRIED soldiers hitting the sheets with each other it wasn't funny. I *KNOW* I was there to serve my country and I'm damn proud of my service. Perhaps EVERYONE in the military should abide by their code of conduct and don't worry yourself with the special side rule for the queers - we'll be just fine.

[roblabrousse]

People like you talk as though gay men and woman were raised in another society. We grew up in this country just like you did. With values just like you did. We're not a separate species, so don't talk about "the homosexual". We don't talk about "the heterosexual". We have all grown up "American".

Any gay person who is attracted to the military service will probably have similar interests for joining....to serve their country. Our aptitudes for performing with excellence are no different than yours. You don't mention the guys who hit on fellow female soldiers who might be violating regulations. So where is the crux of this? Ignorance on your part. Gay men and women already know the consequences of coming out of hiding. They know persecution. So it would be on the heterosexual community to learn about acceptance and equality. It wasn't the gay community who came up with the Don't ask. Don't tell. It was the Heterosexual High Command .

[Democrab]

My 3rd son was ratted out and dishonorably discharged. I hope that someday, they'll come a law that retroactively wil exonerate him of former idiocy.

[Steamboater]

Yes, IF Obama follows through and does away with DADT (and he could by simply ordering it--not by Executive Order but because he's Commander In Chief), then he should also issue, not a pardon because Gays and Lesbians have done nothing wrong, but a simple exhoneration order for all the men and women who have ever been discriminated against in the military because of their sexuality. This country owes us that! No one can possibly know the humiliation (unless it happens to them) when you're drafted as I was and called out and told to go to the psychiatrist to be told that I'd be allowed to serve if I underwent psychiatric counseling (during Vietnam). Something like that always stays with you and you never forget it.. It was those who got us into that war and kept at it and waved their flags while the bodies piled up who needed counseling. I told the military they could have me but on my terms and not theirs, so I didn't go to Vietnam to serve a bunch of lunatics.

[BalancedEgg]

It is always a fascinating behavior when an elder generation needs the younger generation to reflect their behaviors and biases as though this were some form of passing on a valuable legacy. There is nothing intrinsically noble about bigotry or paranoia, although many men have found solace in this shared psychological shortcoming. Whether it is the good ol' boy misogyny, racism or homophobia, implying that the next generation of men will accept this weighted mantle without question is to have missed the beauty of what idealistic young people have to offer their calcified mentors. Word.

[roblabrousse]

Wonderfully put.

[moonflowerjewelry]

There are now, always have been and always will be gays in the military... straight men think all gay men are nelly queens and lesbians are all really butch looking man haters
but they aren't...
so many gay men and women have made it a necessary career of fitting in and appearing straight

The fearful among us refuse to come to terms with the fact that gay men and women represent the best and worst of society as a whole: doctors, lawyers, police officers, body builders, firefighters, farmers...
Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender contribute just as much to the healthy functioning of our country and the world would be worse off without them.

[french62]

To LIVE in a world without homosexuals? God forfend something so horrendous as that. I truly don't believe a world filled with only "straight" folks would make it very long. The world would be a much sadder and duller place without the diversity and creativity of homosexuals.

[Grada3784]

Like an atomic nucleus without neutrons, a world of straights would fragment almost immediately.

[godfreyguy]

Colin Powell has really gone down a peg or two in my estimation. It sounds as if he decides something on the basis of the last person he talks to. He allowed himself to be duped by the Bush administration. Well, at least he admits it now thousands of bodies later. Now he is expressing concerns about repealing DADT because 1,000 of his ex-military friends are homophobes. And to think I once thought he would make a great presidential candidate. How lucky we are he didn't go through with it. We have enough moral cowards in public life.