I

Homosexuals in the Armed Forces

David Hicks

ENGL-112

Instructor: Fifita, Kimberly

Due: February 28, 2008

 II

In the past there have been many violations of human rights that have

been explained away, and as unbelievable as it may seem human rights

violations still persist in the U.S. Military. The topic of homosexuals serving

in the military has been the subject of heated debate for many years. The

homosexual community continues to fight for their rights as equals in our

society through such organizations as the LGBT (LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL,

and TRANSGENDER), Intersex Society of North America, and even Amnesty

International . Homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the armed

forces because the ineffectiveness of “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” policy, the effect

on military readiness, and the violation human rights.

First of all I would like to present to you the other side of this argument.

The reasoning behind maintaining the ban on homosexuals in the military is

the effect on unit cohesiveness. Officials that support the ban state that

having homosexuals in the military will damage unit cohesiveness and

ultimately undermine national security. The most powerful argument that I

have found that supports the ban is an article by David Barton titled

Homosexuals in the Military(). This article strongly supports the ban and

offers numerous well placed references to uphold this position. The fault that

I found with this paper was that most of the references provided and

discussed were put forth by our founding fathers. While the founding fathers

have the greatest respect of our country, their ideas and philosophies are

from over 200 years ago. Some philosophies become outdated with time and
 III

this happens to be one of them. The founding fathers also recognized that

philosophies change and become outdated, that is why they created the

constitution in a manner that allows it to evolve, change, and withstand the

test of time. In closing the reason offered by supporters of the ban is;

Homosexuals degrade unit cohesiveness with their presence in the armed

forces.

The “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” or DADT policy is a highly ineffective law

that was enacted to provide protection to homosexuals in the military while

preserving unit cohesion. Once put into place the policy was not used to

protect homosexuals, the policy is primarily used as a means to discharge

homosexual personnel based on their sexual orientation. Homosexual

personnel are already protected by the militaries hazing laws and the equal

opportunity law could easily be extended to protect them as well. In Fact

there is no other law in America that requires the termination of an individual

based on sexual orientation, and this behavior would most likely result in a

hefty lawsuit against the offending institution. There is also a great deal of

evidence that supports the fact that homosexuals serving openly would not

affect unit cohesion. As a heterosexual service member in the Navy, I have

served with two gay individuals. I have never had a problem with their sexual

preferences and have found one of them to be the most motivated individual

to ever work for me. There have also been studies conducted that show a

majority of military over 70% of service members are comfortable with

Homosexuals(). In addition, there are currently homosexual personnel

 IV

serving openly in the militaries of 25 other countries, 16 of which have laws

that directly protect homosexuals.(). Even in our own military there are a

handful of individuals that are able to serve openly because their

commanders choose to turn a blind eye for a good soldier(). The DADT policy

is not needed to protect homosexuals or preserve unit cohesion, there is

alternative protection in place as well as overwhelming evidence that shows

there will be no detriment to unit cohesion.

The effect that the ban has on military readiness is another reason that

by itself could be used as a good argument to allow homosexuals in the

military. Today’s military is an all volunteer force; we rely on Americans that

choose to serve their country. The drawback to this system is there is

frequently a shortage of personnel, this makes every member vital to the

operation of the armed forces, and this includes homosexual personnel. It

takes a great deal of time and tax dollars to train military personnel, and

currently 2.8 percent of those personnel are homosexual(). The loss of the

current homosexual population in the military would be devastating. This is

proven by the fact that the military has already suffered a great deal by the

amount of key personnel that have been discharged already on the grounds

of homosexuality. Over 800 mission critical personnel have been discharge to

date based on homosexuality(). This costs the military a lot of money that

could have been allocated to other more vital resources. There has been 1.2

billion dollars spent on investigating, discharging, and replacing homosexual

service members(). Removing these personnel degrades the effectiveness of

 V

America’s fighting force by creating personnel shortages and costing the

military over 1 billion dollars.

The final issue to address is the violation of human rights that is

caused by not allowing people to serve in the armed forces based on their

sexual preference. There have been other groups of people serving in the

military that have had to fight for their equality. African Americans were once

segregated in the military and fought relentlessly for their right to be

equals(). Women also had to fight to join the military as well as gain equality

in the ranks(). Now that equality for these groups has been achieved we

have the pleasure to witness and benefit from their success and heroism. In

the civilian and military population it is illegal to discriminate against a

person based on race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin().

This represents all groups of people except one, the homosexual population.

The United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights; this document sets a standard of basic human rights

worldwide(). The afore mentioned document has two articles that protect the

right of homosexuals to serve in the military; Article 19 upholds the right to

freedom of opinion and expression, and Article 23 section 1 states that

individuals have the right to free choice of employment with protection from

unemployment(). Unit cohesion is the only reason that supporters of the ban

have put forth, this is no reason to violate the human rights of so many and

unit cohesion is no exception. Many people have struggled for equality, and
 VI

even though most of us know that equality is a basic right, homosexuals are

forced to go through the same struggle.

The United States of America was once plagued with issues of

inequality, minorities and women were discriminated against constantly. To

banish this violation of basic human rights, many strong people chose to

stand and make their voices heard. The end result was an American

government and people that support and uphold the values of equality for

all, except homosexuals. A policy was written to protect homosexuals in the

military then twisted around and used as a tool to remove them from the

ranks. In the process of removing homosexuals from the military, the overall

efficiency is compromised and this alone makes unit cohesiveness irrelevant.

Homosexuals are our brothers and sisters and we need to treat them as

such, and allow them to be our brothers and sisters in arms.

 VII

References

Conahan, F. C. (1993, June). Government Accounting Office. Retrieved February 06,

2008, from Stanford: http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/GAO.pdf

Homosexuals in the Military. (2008). Retrieved 02 17, 2008, from Wall Builders:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101

Law & Elections. (2007, August 25). Retrieved February 06, 2008, from Human
Rights Campaign: http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/5659.htm

Mission. (2008, 02 13). Retrieved 02 17, 2008, from U.S. Commision on Civil Rights:
http://www.usccr.gov/

Polls. (2006, December 18). Retrieved February 06, 2008, from Service Members
Legal Defense network:
http://www.sldn.org/templates/dadt/record.html?section=143&record=1900

Stone, A. (2008). Many troops openly gay, group says. Retrieved 02 17, 2008, from
USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-01-07-gay-
troops_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip&POE=click-refer

U.S. Armed Forces integration chronology. (n.d.). Retrieved 02 17, 2008, from
Redstone: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/integrate/intchron.htm

Universal Declaration of Human rights. (2008). Retrieved 02 17, 2008, from United
Nations: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Women's Armed Services Integration Act. (2008). Retrieved 02 17, 2008, from
Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9125090