Military Service and the Question of Homosexuality

General Peter Pace's mail inbox must be bursting at the seams. With statements issued in a newspaper interview condemning homosexuality, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff has perhaps sparked the controversy of the decade and in all probability, has elicited reactions of all sorts.

The general has been widely quoted as having said, "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts."

He goes on further to say, "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way." In succeeding statements, he likened the immorality of homosexuality as similar to that of adultery.

Although the general has apologized somewhat for his statements, he maintains that he still personally believes in the immorality of homosexuality. Pace is a known Roman Catholic and although he does not reflect the belief of all Catholics or the whole U.S. military for that matter, his statements do reflect a surprising reality. Even at this modern age and even with the growing societal acceptance for homosexuality, many still believe that it is inherently immoral.

The impact of this belief has far reaching consequences. If some among the government's top brass believe in the immorality of homosexuality, then it is no wonder that homosexuals still find it difficult to fight for the rights that they wish to claim.

In the military alone, even as homosexuality has not been directly labeled as immoral, its policy smacks of homosexual discrimination and Pace's statements have brought to the forefront an old policy that has determined the military's stance on homosexuality for more than a decade. It was in President Clinton's term when the policy "don't ask, don't tell" was enforced. In this policy, homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military and will not be interrogated about their sexual orientation. In turn, homosexuals who serve in the military are expected to keep their silence and refrain from homosexual activity. The reason for such a policy is to ensure continued discipline. The penalty for a homosexual who breaks this rule is discharge from duty.

This policy has met with tremendous criticism, not only because it seems both archaic and discriminatory but also because it has become an impractical policy. Thousands have been discharged because of this rule. Some of those who had to leave the military were language specialists whose services could have been useful in the Middle East.

Critics of the "don't ask, don't say" policy maintain that the United States has been backward in its consideration of the issue of homosexuality. Some countries, including Britain, allow homosexuals to serve in the military, and so far, they have not been suffering the "ills" of the homosexual orientation. Many believe that if homosexual soldiers can be as equally disciplined and successful as heterosexual soldiers in foreign countries then so can homosexual American soldiers.

Indeed Pace's statements may have brought an avalanche of renewed criticism for the government's stand on homosexuality. It is however, only through this re-opening of old issues that the issue of homosexuality in the military can ever be resolved.