United States Military Gay/Lesbian Policy

[Bill Harsey]

Just got a phone call from a friend who is a radio show host and he asked me a question I couldn't answer nor did I find the answer here with a cursory search.

What was the policy in the United States military for gays and lesbians prior to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and how is it different now?

Reason for this question is said radio show host will be hosting a debate of Oregon Republican lawmakers on this thursday and could use some background for questions.

Any help greatly appreciated.

[Ret10Echo]

Bill,
There is a GAO report that was concluded in 1992 on the topic. In the report there is some background. This is short of actually acquiring the previous military regulations.

From the report:

According to DOD officials, U.S. forces have had policies prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military since the beginning of World War II. DOD’S current policy on homosexuality was formalized in 1982 and specifically states that:
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among servicemembers; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of servicemembers who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the Military Services; to maintain public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.

According to DOD, a homosexual is “a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, desires to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.” DOD defines a homosexual act as “bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires.”

Page is here (http://archive.gao.gov/d33t10/146980.pdf)

I would attach, but the archive record is a 7 MB file


The current DOD Instruction NUMBER 1304.26 states:

E2.2.8. Provisions Related to Homosexual Conduct.

E2.2.8.1. A person's sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter, and is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct in the manner described in section 654 of Reference (c). Applicants for enlistment, appointment, or induction shall not be asked or required to reveal their sexual orientation nor shall they be asked to reveal whether they have engaged in homosexual conduct, unless independent evidence is received indicating an applicant engaged in such conduct or the applicant volunteers a statement that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect.

DTIC link here (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130426p.pdf)

[CSB]

In the "olden days" (pre-1980+/-) homosexuality was considered a "defect," like weak ankles or a trick knee. it could result in involuntary separation, but the separation board had the authority to refuse to separate a soldier even if they found -- as a fact -- that the soldier was a homosexual.

I can't remember the name of the soldier, but there was the famous case of the staff sergeant (I think at Ft. Lewis, WA) who had checked "yes" to the question "Are you a homosexual" on his draftee entrance physical. Believing that he was trying to shirk service during the Viet Nam era, the physician approved him for entry, where he served well in combat, and reenlisted several times. At each physical he continued to check the box "yes" when asked if he was a homosexual. Finally, he was sent to a chapter board, but the board elected to retain him on active duty. Then the Army changed the rules, and made separation mandatory upon a factual finding of homosexuality. The SSG sued, and a federal court decided (rightly, in my opinion) that the Army was barred from discharging him because he had never hidden his status, served honorably, and was within a few years of retirement.

=====

The mandatory separation requirement has been the law ever since, but under the "don't ask/don't tell" policy, for example, the "Are you a homosexual" is no longer on the physical examination.

=====

When I was a JAG in the 101st Airborne Division at Ft. Campbell in the late 1980's, we had the case of "Charlies Angels," three lesbian soldiers in Charlie Company, 311th MI Battalion. They were all discharged under Chapter 15. So how did it come to the attention of the command? Because they were crawling into each other's bed in the barracks and their roommates complained that they literally couldn't get any sleep from the giggles and slurping coming from the other bunk.

[By the way, when asked "Are you a lesbian, one of the girls replied "Yes."
So the investigator asked her "What is a lesbian?" and she replied:

... I am not making this up ...

"A lesbian is a woman who likes women of the opposite sex."]

I've always thought that was a very good definition.

=====

A teaching point:

SON: "Dad, can I borrow the car?"

DAD: "Sure son, as long as I can't tell you borrowed it. That means it is parked back where you got it, clean, neat, still with gas in the tank, no odor of cigarettes, nothing in the ashtray. If I can't tell you've borrowed it, fine. But if I can tell that you have had the car, then something is wrong, and the answer is no."

An analogy for:

SOLDIER: "JAG, what does it mean 'don't ask - don't tell,' can a homosexual be in the military?

LTC JAG: "It means yes, a homosexual can be in the military, as long as I can't tell you are a homosexual. That means no kissing in uniform, or obviously lipsmacking in public, no homosexual magazines lying around your room, no holding hands on the flight line. If I can tell that you are a homosexual, then you have done something to bring attention to yourself, and then the military has a problem with that."

SOLDIER: "So you don't have a witch hunt for gays in the military?"

JAG: "No, we don't have a "witch hunt" for gays in the military. By way of comparison, we don't apologize at all for having a "witch hunt" for illegal drug users. We actively seek them out, with random drug screens, periodic physicals, we shadow known drug locations, we look for drug paraphernalia. But we don't stake out gay bars and write down license plate numbers, we don't question those who are being separated for homosexuality to "snitch" on other homosexuals. If the Army begins a Chapter 15 AR 635-200 proceeeding to separate a soldier for homosexuality, then that soldier has done something to bring their "sexual orientation" to the attention of the chain of command."

And that is the nickle version of "don't ask - don't tell."

[1stindoor]

As an outhouse lawyer that sat next to a JAG Officer once on a jump....

I think it's also important to note that the DADT policy came about as a result of Pres. Clinton's efforts to allow gays to serve. Their pressure after his campaign "promise" was the reason behind the policy change...I think it very nearly derailed his entire first year in office (not that he needed the help).

It's my not so humble opinion that the DADT policy is viewed by the liberal left as a result of conservative law makers and not their own party.

[Buffalobob]

That's truly hilarious.

If that was the policy then half the nation would have been claiming to be homosexual to stay out of the Vietnam war.

[JimP]

Don't forget - that TODAY...if you want to look into evidence of an individual claiming "Butt-Nut" status, you have to inform - and receive - permission from DA to proceed.

Not a bad deal today - kind of "try before you buy" policy. You can come in and stay as long as you like. If things go south (so to speak...) you can claim homosexuality/tendency towards tail-gunning and get out with an Honorable discharge.

[1stindoor]

Since this has been in the news of late, I had something forwarded to me supposedly from a retired Marine officer. I found some interesting points in the "rant."

Special interest groups whose primary intent is fostering total acceptance not only of homosexuals but the homosexual lifestyle are using the Armed Forces as a judicial lab rat. I am suspect of any person who puts any personal issue above devotion to duty and accomplishment of mission. Are we Marines 24/7? What is more important one's sexuality, one's religion, one political party, or the imperatives of duty? On a practical level: I am not sure what serving "Openly" as a homosexual means. I would like to see a definition. Is all homosexual conduct permitted? Such as, cross dressing and going to the PX? What conduct is not permitted? From a command and leadership perspective these questions need to be addressed, and the Congress needs to make the necessary adjustments to the UCMJ. When someone joins the Armed Forces must he/she declare their sexuality? i.e. male or female; homo/hetro I want to know how Federal hate speech laws apply to the Armed Forces. For example, If a non-homosexual Marine calls a homosexual Marine a "faggot" is that hate speech? Will company commanders be required to take judicial action? If no judicial action is taken, will commanders be subject to civil or criminal suit by various homosexual political groups and their elected sponsors. Will a career Marine's personal opinion on homosexuality become an impediment to promotion or assignment to key billets?

Do the Senate and the House Armed Services committees intend to demand sexuality statistics to make certain that homosexuals are being promoted at the same rate as non-homosexuals? Will homosexuals be promoted at a faster rate to "compensate" for previous years of discrimination? Since same sex marriage is not authorized by Federal Law is a married homosexual from MA authorized to enlist? Does the spouse of a married homosexual rate a dependent's ID card? Will "partners" of homosexuals be given dependent status?

If yes, what is the definition of a "partner", one night stand, one year relationship. How often may a homosexual change partners and the partner still rate dependent benefits? Will partners of homosexuals be assigned to on-base housing? Do former "partners" of active duty homosexuals retain dependent benefits (like a divorced spouse) when divorce is not a legal option? Will homosexual Marines be permitted to date each other? Live with each other as "partners" in the BOQ/BEQ"? How does this affect fraternization regulations? Will homosexuals be deployed to countries where there is no SOFA in place in which homosexuality is a crime? If no, who picks up the slack? Are there any assignments to which homosexuals must be or may not be assigned? For example, may an elected official demand a homosexual officer as a military aide? Will homosexuals who become HIV positive still be discharged? Is being HIV positive now a "service connected" injury which rates disability? These are just the tip of the ice berg. I have no doubt that right now there are active duty colonels who are just now discovering their real sexuality and can't wait to be the FIRST OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL GENERAL To sum it up, it is approaching FUBAR status!! I fear for the future of our Corps.