Page 10 GAY PEOPLE'S CHRONICLE March, 1991

Pentagon's ban on gays is showing cracks

by Karen Schneiderman

Two weeks after the coalition force's first bombs fell on Iraq, the United States of America celebrated the 48th anniversary of Defense Department Rule 1332.14, the ban of lesbian and gay men in the United States armed forces. Recently, the New York Times reported that the military uses this rule to dishonorably discharge at least 1,000 lesbian and gay soldiers annually. Between 1985-89, reports show that women were discharged at eight times the rate of men under this rule.

In the past decade, lesbian and gay men activists have more visibly challenged the military ban with increasing success. The recently declared war in the Persian Gulf, however, has caused the Pentagon to more stoically endorse the ban, though its implementation is becoming increasingly more hypocritical and frocked with blatant sexist homophobia.

The most notable example of the Pentagon's current hypocrisy involves Donna Lynn Jackson, a 25-year-old Army reservist from San Diego, who informed her unit commander by letter that "I am an open lesbian and wish to be deployed as such with my unit."

ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among the members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of members who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the military services; to maintain the public acceptability of military services; and, in certain circumstances, to prevent breaches in security."

Despite the homophobic tone of this rule, lesbian and gay men continue to enlist and serve in the U.S. armed forces.

"At least ten percent of the Gulf forces are gay," says Kate Dyer, legislative assistant to openly gay Rep. Gerry *Studds, DMass., and editor of the recently published Gays in Uniform: The Pentagon's Secret Reports [Alyson Publications, Boston, 1990]. According to the Boston Gay Community News, Dyer claims there is reason to believe that this percentage may be higher, because many lesbian and gay men join the military to escape small towns with little or no gay community, and that a military career affords people less pressure to marry and have children.

Despite Jackson's unequivocal affirmation of her sexual orientation, the unit commander decided to have her deployed anyway. The unit commander was attempting to reconcile two incompatible Enduring battles on two fronts military policies, the long-standing ban on lesbian and gay men, and the recent "stoploss" policy which allows unit commanders to delay the processing of all "nonessential" discharges due to the personnel

needs of the Gulf deployment.

Jackson, willing to be deployed, was unable to get an assurance that she would not be dishonorably discharged upon her return from the Gulf. Fortunately, the national media the picked up the story, attacking the military's exploitive position which authorizes Jackson's deploymentand later a gay discharge if she returns alive. Exposed and embarrassed, the Pentagon resolved the short-term problem by ignoring their own policies, by terminating Jackson's deployment and giving her an honorable discharge.

Women and people of color

The military's treatment of lesbian and gay men parallels the struggles of women and people of color. Until World War II, women were unable to enlist in the U.S.

armed forces. World War II brought unique pressures and the need for personnel which forced the military to abandon their historic exclusion of women, causing the establishment the WACS, WAVES, and SPEARS.

The position of soldiers of color did not improve until the end of World War II, when segregated units were disbanded and they were integrated into the military as a whole. The integration of the U.S. military was an appeasement to the growing civil rights movement and came as a result of

President Truman's executive order in 1948, five years after the adoption of the gay ban.

Gays in uniform, despite the ban

Since the adoption of military ban in 1943, lesbian and gay men have suffered through ten presidents, three major wars, and numerous military conflicts without much change in the policy. The current version of military policy, adopted in 1982, states:

"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence of such members adversely affects the

Alan Berude's Coming Out Under Fire, [Free Press, New York 1990] is an excellent perspective of lesbians and gay men who served in World War II. Berude explains that before 1940, sexual orientation was not considered in the screening process for enlistment. Soldiers were excluded because of "gender concepts and sexual acts," because they exhibited “feminine characteristics," or engaged in anal or oral sex. Punishment usually involved court martial, imprisonment, and dishonorable discharges.

With the start of the draft in 1940, Berude says the military began to focus on sexual orientation by excluding "sexual and gender deviants" from service. The military's rationale for this exclusion mirrored the justifications used to support the historical exclusion of women and people of color from military service. Lesbian and gay men are seen as poor combat soldiers, threatening to morale and discipline, encouraging social experimentation rather than military efficiency, and increasing the potential for security breaches.

As with women and people of color, the underlying justification for the gay ban is not supported by the evidence. In Dyer's Gays in Uniform, two recent secret Defense Department-sponsored reports are made public. These reports demonstrate how far some parts of the military have come in understanding the issues surrounding sexual orientation and attempt to chip away at the military's homophobic stereotyping and historic rationale supporting the gay ban.

Further, a recent Gallup poll demonstrates that the public support for this ban is severely deteriorating. Sixty-two percent of the surveyed public were opposed to the military's ban of lesbian and gay men who want to serve.

The systemization of the current military's approach regarding lesbian and gay soldiers began in 1943, according to Berude. The Defense Department then adopted Rule 1332.14 which incorporates the three historic techniques: incarceration, hospitalization, and reclamation for those who were "salvageable." By 1948, the military, compelled by the growing anti-gay hysteria the undertow of the 1950's Red Scare-washed their hands of

the lesbian and gay soldiers. This was done by requiring discharge rather than reclaimation or hospitalization procedures, by adopting the quick and vague "general discharge for unsuitability."

Today, court-martials and subsequent imprisonment are still utilized against lesbians and gay soldiers. Last year Col. Edward Modesto, of Fort Carson, Colorado, was sentenced to serve nine months in a military prison after being found guilty of eight counts of 'conduct unbecoming of an officer' for performing in drag at a local gay bar.

The current policy, adopted in 1982, is the most broad policy on the subject since 1943. The current version of Rule 1332.14 discharges all lesbian and gay military personnel based on merely an affirmation of their sexual orientation, not just those engaging in homosexual activities. Under the current policy, thousands of soldiers are investigated annually merely because an allegation that they are gay!

This is especially true when female soldiers reject the sexual advances of their male colleagues. The military is more apt to investigate an allegation of homosexuality than sexual harassment.

Today, lesbian and gay soldiers continue to fight two battles, the one in the Persian Gulf and the one within their own barracks.

'Say you're gay, avoid the draft'

This claim was made by Randy Shilts, author of And the Band Played On and The Times of Harvey Milk, and recently at work on a book about gays in the military since 1969. Shilts, in a recent article in the New York Times, stated that "gay deceivers" were a major headache for the Selective Service during the Vietnam War. The military began to require prospective draftees to furnish signed affidavits from sexual partners attesting to homosexual activity evade military service.

Clearly, times have changed. Shilts claims that reservists like Jackson may find success in avoiding deployment by affirming their sexual orientation. "For much of America, homosexuality is not the bugaboo it once was," claims Shilts, "In 1965, dodging the draft through claims of homosexuality might have meant disgrace. In 1990, it would probably do little more than earn one a slot on Geraldo or Sally Jesse Raphael."

The recent cases of Donna Lynn Jackson, Perry Watkins, and Joseph Steffen demonstrate that lesbians and gay soldiers are far less reluctant to openly affirm their sexual orientation than their Vietnam counterparts.

Sgt. Perry Watkins, a Vietnam Army

veteran with a distinguished service record, found a loophole in the Army's application of the gay ban. Watkins had checked 'homosexual tendencies' on his induction form in 1967, but the Army drafted him anyway. During his 14-year military career, including two re-enlistments, he had been openly gay. The Army investigated Watkins at one point, and he was even required to provide a written statement that affirmed his sexual orientation. At his third re-enlistment in 1982, Watkins was refused re-enlistment and summarily discharged because a literal interpretation of the 1982 revision of 1332.14 excluded anyone claiming to be gay.

Watkins sued, and in November 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court decision overturning Watkins' discharge. The Court said the Army had waived the application of the gay ban policy in Watkins' case since it had previously permitted Watkins to re-enlist, knowing he was gay.

According to a recent Gay Community News interview, Watkins said that the policy will only change when "everyone in the military... comes out of the closet." Watkins explained that the closeted service personnel contribute to the illusion fostered by the anti-gay policies. "If a person who is an admitted homosexual can function in the Army, then a person who is not an admitted homosexual can contribute to the Army as well."

Watkins, who now works for the Social Security Administration, agreed on January 29 to forgo his reinstatement into the Army in exchange for back pay, full retirement benefits, and an honorable discharge. The Army also agreed to promote Wakins from staff sergeant to sergeant first class.

Joseph Steffan is a gay ex-Naval Academy cadet, who was forced to resign from the Academy in 1989, several weeks prior to graduation. Steffan had to forfeit his graduation and was stripped of his commission because he acknowledged that he was gay.

In January, the federal appellate court gave the green light for Steffan's First Amendment lawsuit. The appellate court refused to permit the Navy's inquiries into Steffan's sexual conduct while in the Navy, forcing the discharge to be solely based upon Steffan's “admission that he is a homosexual rather than any evidence of misconduct."

According to Gregory King, communications director of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, this ruling is "another clear sign that military discrimination against lesbian and gay Americans is under attack and we're going to win. Following the decision on Perry Watkins, this is another positive sign in our long struggle."

March to focus on anti-gay rule

Continued from page 1

According to these organizations, by mid-January at least 14 openly lesbian and gay reservists had been cleared for active duty in the Gulf. Prior to beginning approved for deployment to the Gulf, these lesbian and gay soldiers were also told that discharge proceedings would begin if they returned from the war.

It is hoped that these reservists will challenge the anti-gay policy after they return. Such challenges would be the strongest legal challenges to the policy to date.

At least one lesbian reservist has challenged the anti-gay policy by requesting a Gulf assignment after coming out to her unit commander. Donna Lynn Jackson was originally approved for deployment, but her attempt to gain assurance that she would not be subsequently dishonorably discharged upon her return resulted in her honorable dismissal from military service.

The military policy, reissued in 1982, claims "persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements,

demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impair the accomplishment of the military mission..."

There is also concern that the current military policy is adding extra anxiety to lesbian and gay military personnel. In addition to being forced into a desert closet for fear of being outed by other soldiers, the lesbian and gay soldiers have limited support from home. All correspondence to and from the Gulf is subjected to military censors. This has had a chilling effect on the letters to and from many lesbian and gay soldiers in the Gulf. These letters are often fronted by others, written "in code" with terms of affection omitted, or just never written for fear of exposure and discharge.

Stonewall Cleveland is urging everyone to come out on March 23 and public denounce this policy.

Stonewall also invited other community organizations to endorse their position and visibly join the march. For more information, please contact Stonewall Cleveland at 262-1927. ▼