Notes:
Chapter 1: Why the Military Would Ban Homosexuals
1) Shilts gives evidence that the military actually eases up on
its antihomosexual rules when it needs people to fight. Shilts,
R. What's fair in love and war. <Newsweek>, 1993, 121(5).
2) Kramer explains President Clinton's policies on gays in the
military. Kramer, M. Don't settle for hypocrisy. <Time>, 1993,
142(4), 41.
3) Benecke, M. M. & Dodge, K. S. Lesbian baiting as sexual
harassment: Women in the military. . In Warren Blumfeld (Ed.)
<Homophobia: How We All Pay the Price>. Boston: Beacon Press,
1992. Benecke, M. M. & Dodge, K. S. Military women in
nontraditional job fields: Casualties of the Armed Forces' war
on homosexuals. <Harvard Women's Law Journal>, 1990, 13,
215-250.
4) <We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers
from the Consent of the Governed.--That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such Principles, and
organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.>
5) Towell, P. Military dismissals. <Congressional Quarterly
Weekly Report> February 6, 1993, 51(6), 274.
<<note the name Berube belows has an accent over teach e. Note
also that the word appears twice>>
6) Personal communication with Allan Berube, 12/04/93. Berube, A.
<Coming Out under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World
War Two>. New York: The Free Press, 1990.
7) Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics
of Diagnosis. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981.
8) See: Office of the Secretary of Defense Working Group
Memorandum, 8 June 1993, "Recommended DoD Homosexual Policy
Outline."
9) A version of this argument was expressed by the judge in the
case of <Steffan v. Dick Cheney>. In his opinion, Judge Gasch
said:
In the Military Establishment and for those who attend
the Naval academy, the policy of separating men and
women while sleeping, bathing and "using the bathroom"
seeks to maintain the privacy of officers and the
enlisted when in certain states of undress. The
embarrassment of being naked between the sexes is
prevalent because sometimes the other is considered to
be a sexual object. The quite rational assumption in
the Navy is that with no one present who has a
homosexual orientation, men and women alike can
undress, sleep, bathe, and use the bathroom without
fear or embarrassment that they are being viewed as
sexual objects.( <Steffan v. Cheney> Civil action No.
88-3669-0g, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia,
Dec. 09, 1991, pp. 27-28. )
A similar statement of the privacy argument was made by
Charles Moskos, a professor at Northwestern
University, chairman of the Inter-University Seminar
on Armed Forces and Society and author of the recent
book "The Military -- More Than Just a Job?" Moskos
said:
Sex between [military] service members does
undermine order, discipline and morale. So
does invasion of sexual privacy. That is why
the military separates the living quarters
of men and women. Even in field conditions,
the privacy of men and women is maintained to
the maximum degree possible. Nowhere in
our society are the sexes forced to endure
situations of undress in front of each
other. Should we have "empirical research"
on the effects on military efficiency of
mixed male/female bathing? Most women -- and
many men -- dislike being stripped of all
privacy before the opposite sex. Similarly,
most heterosexual men and women dislike being
exposed to homosexuals of their own sex. If
feelings of privacy for women are respected
regarding privacy from men, then we must
respect those of straights with regard to
gays.(The quotation is excerpted from a
newspaper commentary by Moskos. (cf.,Moskos,
C. Why banning homosexuals still makes
sense, <Navy Times>, March 30, 1992).)
Also, see a similar argument presented by Colin Powell on page 49
of Chapter 2.
It should be noted that before making the privacy argument for
banning homosexuals, Moskos dismissed the persuasiveness of the
AIDS argument on the grounds that "HIV testing in the military
makes the health argument untenable. Further, what if a cure or
prevention for AIDS were to be discovered tomorrow? Is the way
then clear for homosexuals in the military?" And he dismissed
the argument that homosexuals were susceptible to blackmail
saying, "If one's sexual proclivities do not have to be
concealed, they can hardly be the basis for extortion."
10) National Defense Research Institute, <Sexual Orientation and
U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment>,
Prepared for the office of the Secretary of Defense, MR-323-OSD,
RAND, 1993.
11) Towell, P. Military dismissals. <Congressional Quarterly
Weekly Report>, Febrary 6, 1993, 51(6), 274.
12) Navy secretary quits in 1991 convention sex-abuse furor.
<Facts on File} July 2, 1992, 52(2693), 484; Naval operations:
Sexual harassment. (sexual harassment case resulting
fromTailhook convention) <Economist> July 4, 1992, 324(7766).
Report details abuses at '91 naval aviators' convention.
(Tailhook scandal)(includes related article) <Facts on File>,
April 29, 1993, 53(2735) 305.
13) Seifert, R. Constructions of masculinity - The military as a
discursive power. <Argument>, 1992, Nov-Dec, 34(6), 859-872.
Donald, R. R. Masculinity and machismo in Hollywood's war films.
In Steve Craig (Ed.), <Men, Masculinity, and the Media.>,
Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1992.
14) For a very partial listing consider: Edwards, G. R. A
Critique of Creationist Homophobia. In Richard Hasbany (Ed.)
<Homosexuality and Religion>. Binghampton, NY: Haworth Press,
1989, 95-118. Heron, A. (Ed.) <Towards a Quaker View of Sex>.
London: Friends Home Service Committee, 1963. McNeil, J. <The
Church and the Homosexual>, Kansas City, MO: Sheed, Andrews and
McMeel, 1976. Gramick, J. Rome Speaks, the Church Responds. In
Jeannine Grammick & Pat Furey (Eds.) <The Vatican and
Homosexuality>, New York: Crossroad, 1988, 93-104. Ashley, B.
M. Compassion and Sexual Orientation.in Jeannine Grammick & Pat
Furey (Eds.) <The Vatican and Homosexuality>, New York:
Crossroad, 1988, 105-111.Cooper, A. No longer Invisible: Gay and
Lesbian Jews Build a Movement. In R. Hasbany (Ed.)
<Homosexuality and Religion>, New York: Harrington Park Press,
1989. Nugent, R. & Gramick, J. Homosexuality: Protestant,
Catholic and Jewish Issues: A Fishbone Tale. In R. Hasbany
(Ed.) Homosexuality and Religion, New York: Harrington Park
Press, 1989. Boswell, J. (1980). Christianity, Social
Tolerance and Homosexuality. Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago
Press, 1980. Jones, H. K. Toward a Christian Understanding of
the Homosexual. New York: Associated Press, 1966. Scanzoni, L. Is
the Homosexual My Neighbor: Another Christian View. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978.
15) Chandler, R. The Times Poll: Americans Like Pope but
Challenge Doctrine. <Los Angeles Times>, 23 August 1987, p.20.
Cited in Gramick, J. "Rome Speaks, the Church Responds." In
Jeannine Grammick & Pat Furey (Eds.) <The Vatican and
Homosexuality>, New York: Crossroad, 1988.
16) This conclusion is based on the author's conversation with
several key people who monitor personnel policy for the Canadian
military. It is based in part on a conversation on 06/18/93
with Ron Dickenson , Acting Director of Personnel - Policy 2 at
the National Defense Headquarters in Ottawa Canada. Dickenson
indicated that no one has asked to resign from the military
because of homosexuals, or submitted a grievance saying they do
not want to be in the service because of the removal of the ban
against homosexuals, or in any other way that can be detected,
caused a disruption in the smooth running of the military. This
information was also confirmed by George Logan, the official
whom Ron Dickenson replaced in June of 1993, and on August 17,
1993, it was confirmed by Frank Pinch, Ph.D. who is the recently
retired Director General Personnel Policy Division, who
indicated he was still in contact with those members of the
Canadian forces who would know if there was any disruption due to
the new policy which dropped the ban against homosexuals in the
Canadian military. As of August 17, 1993, therefore, the
lifting of the ban against homosexuals in the Canadian military
had lasted approximately ten months without a disruptive
incident. Also see: Fisher, L. Armed and gay. <Maclean's> May
24, 1993, 106(21), 14-16.
17) The military report on homosexuals given to Secretary Aspin
July 1993, suggested that the legal policy of foreign countries
accepting homosexuals is made workable because in these
countries "few servicemembers openly declare their homosexuality
due to fears of baiting, bashing, and negative effects to their
careers." Office of the Secretary of Defense Working group
memorandum, 8 June 1993, "Recommended DoD Homosexual Policy
Outline."
18) Akin, Scott R.; Gallagher, John. Class struggle.
<Advocate>, March 9, 1993 (2 pages)
19) Henry III, William. A mindset under siege. <Time>, November
30, 1992, 40-42.
20) See for example: President Clinton spends too much time on
gay rights say a majority of Americans: <U.S. News & World
Report> Poll. <U.S. News & World Report Press Release>.
Saturday, June 26, 1993. Herek, G. M. Beyond 'homophobia': A
social psychological perspective on attitudes toward lesbians
and gay men. <Journal of Homosexuality>, 1984, 10, 1-21.Herek,
G. M. Stigma, prejudice and violence against lesbians and gay
men. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.) <Homosexuality:
Research implications for public policy>. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage, 1991, 60-80. Schneider, W., & Lewis, I. A. The straight
story on homosexuality and gay rights. [Public Opinion>,
February/March, 1984, 7, 16-20, 59-60; Saad, L. & McAneny, L.
Americans Deeply Split over Ban on Gays in Military. <The Gallup
Poll Monthly>, February, 1993, 6-11.