G Dean Sinclair. Journal of Homosexuality. Volume 56, Issue 6. 2009.
It is no secret that homosexuals have in the past, do so currently, and will continue to serve in the military. There is a plethora of documentation that supports the existence of homosexuals in every branch of the service. What has been a secret is their sexual orientation. Homosexuals have been involved in the protection of the United States even before it was a nation and before there was a formally organized military (Shilts, 1993). However, they have always had to hide their sexual behavior to protect themselves from discharge and at times from criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Originally, individuals were not removed from service because of their sexual orientation; it was the sexual act of sodomy (anal and oral sex between two men) that was the crime and justification for dismissal from military service (Berube, 1990).
Barring and discharging homosexuals from the military has been sporadic and determinate upon the need for personnel. During World War II, the screening and exclusion of homosexuals from military service was loosened, but once the demand for personnel diminished the standards for enlistment tightened (Herek & Belkin, 2005). The justification for the exclusion of homosexuals from military service has also fluctuated. During the 1940s, the military used psychiatry’s determination of homosexuality as a mental illness to justify discharging gay soldiers; in the 1950s, homosexuals were determined to be particularly vulnerable to blackmail and thus a threat to national security (Haggerty, 2003). When President Clinton proposed lifting the military’s ban on homosexuals in 1993, Congress and military leaders emphasized the threat of undermining unit cohesion (Halley, 1999).
There was a time that homosexuality was not taboo and was actually an acceptable behavior in the military. Historical records propose that Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Frederick the Great, and Napoleon were all either homosexual or bisexual (Humphrey, 1990). Although the existence of homosexuals in military service can be traced back to early civilization, this review is focused on homosexuals in the U.S. military.
Historical Perspective
Shilts (1993) provides an exhaustive historical account of homosexuals in the military from 1778 through 1990. One of the most interesting historical accounts takes place in the earliest period of the U.S. military. In 1778, a poorly organized Continental Army was in much need of leadership and discipline in order to challenge the British forces. One of Europe’s military prodigies, Baron von Steuben was brought to the United States by Benjamin Franklin to assist in training the Continental Army. Steuben was at first reluctant to accept Franklin’s appeal, but a surfacing scandal that identified Steuben as being involved in homosexual-related behavior helped change his mind. Although the Baron was only a captain in the Prussian army, Franklin spread the word that Steuben was actually a lieutenant general.
George Washington enthusiastically greeted Steuben when he arrived at Valley Forge and asked him to review the troops and offer suggestions for improvement. Steuben’s recommendations were well received and he immediately became the authority for training the troops. Because of a language barrier, to assist Steuben, Washington assigned two French-speaking colonels from his own staff, Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens. Historians have since surmised that the two were lovers. In short time, Washington appointed Steuben as the first Inspector General of the Army and days later promoted him to Major General. Steuben served as a field commander during the successful battle at Yorktown and historians have considered him and Washington as the two men most indispensable for the success of the Revolution. General Steuben’s drill book became the official drilling manual until the War of 1812. Furthermore, Steuben’s commitment to the military led to proposals that are responsible for the creation of the United States Military Academy at West Point.
Shilts (1993) also provides accounts of highly decorated gay navy captains in the early 1800s, gay soldiers who fought during the Civil War, and others who served in the cavalry under General Custer. Among these accounts are examples of officers and soldiers whose homosexual behavior was known by other service members, but overlooked due to their contributions to the military. There is no shortage of examples of homosexuals who have served honorably and with distinction from the earliest of days up to the present, and thus it is ironic that the U.S. military’s origin and perhaps the country’s freedom is due to a gay general. Although men were being discharged for homosexual behavior during these early years, there was no clear guidance on the matter and thus commanders were imposing the discharges at their own discretion. A revision to the Articles of War in 1919 is the first time a regulation was established specifically addressing the act of sodomy as a felony crime and thus resulted in a large number of soldiers and sailors being imprisoned during the following 20 years (Shilts).
Although gay men were required to keep their sexual behavior covert, there was little attention given to homosexual orientation. All of this changed during World War II when psychiatry became involved in the military’s personnel screening process. Psychiatry’s determination of homosexuality as a mental illness shifted the military’s focus from the sexual act to the individual, thus the new screening procedures deemed homosexuality as a personality type that was unfit for military service (Berube, 1990). During the screening process men were subjected to psychiatric examinations to determine if they were homosexual. As if the examinations were not humiliating enough, men who were suspected or determined to be homosexual were sent back to their recruiting station with documentation explaining why the individual was rejected. In order to ensure that some men were not falsely claiming to be homosexual to avoid service, the military conducted social investigations into their background to determine if they were truly homosexual or merely malingerers (Berube, 1990). When women were allowed to enter the military, they were susceptible to the screening process as well. However, there were no policies concerning lesbians, and criminal law did not address lesbian sexual acts, thus most homosexual women were able to enter the military undetected (Berube, 1990).
When war was declared in 1941, the U.S. army had little choice but to lower its entrance standards in order to meet the need for troops. By 1945, the military had enlisted 6 million citizens and drafted an additional 10 million (Berube, 1990). During this time, the Selective Service Act provided employers access to draft records, thus a gay man was forced to either lie about his sexual orientation in order to get through the military screening process or face permanent stigma and humiliation from his draft records proclaiming him to be a homosexual (Berube, 1990). Considering 16 million men and women served during World War II, it is safe to assume that a significant number of those individuals were homosexual.
Before enlistment or being drafted, many men and women did not know what homosexuality was or even that they possessed the intimate interest in a member of the same gender. During World War II, millions of men and women from all parts of the country were suddenly thrust into close contact with one another. Men and women have shared their experiences of coming to terms with their sexual orientation after finding themselves surrounded by others of the same gender with no privacy in the showers, the toilets, and in the barracks rooms (Berube, 1990). Men and women not only realized their own homosexuality but began to learn how to recognize other homosexuals as well. Gay men and lesbians began to realize that they were not alone and were able to alleviate their feelings of isolation and establish fulfilling lives through a network of friends, military and civilian (Cruikshank, 1994).
At the end of the war, the need for military personnel decreased and the anti-homosexual policies were strictly enforced, leading to a large number of gay and lesbian discharges (Berube, 1990). Many of those discharged were labeled as sexual psychopaths and thus chose not to return to their hometowns but instead moved to major cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York where they could blend in and become a part of a larger homosexual community (Herek & Belkin, 2005). Many other homosexuals who had avoided detection also moved to the larger cities after leaving the military and thus contributed to large and visible gay communities (D’Emilio, 1983). Although the discrimination of gay men and lesbians continued, both in and out of the military, a new social movement was emerging in the United States that was beginning to call for civil rights for gays and lesbians (Adam, 1995).
During the 1970s, the legality of the military’s anti-homosexual policy was challenged by Leonard Matlovich and others, but with little success (Hippler, 1989). These challenges led to the Department of Defense (DoD) to develop a new directive that clarified its position on homosexuality. The new policy, DoD Directive 1332.14 (1982), stated that:
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Armed Forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among the members; to ensure integrity of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the military services; and in certain circumstances, to prevent breaches of security.
Along with the new policy, most military personnel discharged for homosexuality began to receive an honorable discharge, but the discharge paperwork still lists homosexuality as the reason (Lehring, 2003). Under this new policy, approximately 17,000 servicemen and women were discharged for homosexuality (Government Accountability Office, 1992).
The latest change to the military’s policy toward homosexuals is a result of President Clinton’s attempt to end the ban. In response to Clinton’s proposal, Congress conducted extensive hearings that resulted in a compromise between Congress and the President known as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and was signed into law by President Clinton in 1993 (Donnelly, 2005). The policy has the following three provisions that did not exist before: (1) for the first time military leaders and Congress acknowledged that homosexuals have served with distinction in the military; (2) sexual orientation is no longer a bar to military service; and (3) calls for an end to intrusive questions regarding sexual orientation and investigations into individual sexual behaviors (Bowling, Firestone, & Harris, 2005). The new policy, however, has resulted in an actual increase of homosexual discharges since its inception, with approximately 10,000 discharges between 1994 and 2003 (Blue Ribbon Commission, 2006).
Rationale for Homosexual Exclusion
The DADT policy is only a modification of the previous policies regarding homosexuals in the military. The DADT (US Code 654,1993) policy states,
The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service. The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
Arguing against the ban, President Clinton stated that “the emphasis should always be on people’s conduct, not their status”; “there is no study showing homosexuals to be less capable or more prone to misconduct than heterosexual soldiers”; “misconduct is already covered by the laws and rules” (Halley, 1999, p. 28).
The government has used several different justifications for banning homosexuals from the military. Originally gay men and lesbians were considered to be mentally and physically unfit to serve in the military, but this has been proven to not be the case as demonstrated by countless examples of their honorable service throughout military history (Berube, 1990; Shilts, 1993) as well as psychiatry’s eventual reversal of homosexuality as a mental illness. In the 1950s, Senator McCarthy and others claimed that homosexuals posed a national security threat, but that claim was dispelled by the Navy Crittenden Report (Lehring, 1996). It stated that alcoholics and adulterous heterosexuals were more of a security risk than homosexuals. The next two and current justifications for excluding gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military are unit cohesion and the violation of heterosexual service member’s privacy rights (Herek & Belkin, 2005).
According to the military’s perspective, heterosexuals dislike homosexuals and thus are not able to establish the necessary bond required for a unit to function effectively (Miller & Williams, 2001). Unit cohesion has been extensively studied by researchers and scholars and the literature indicates that military unit cohesion is task oriented rather than socially focused, thus the members are committed to achieving a shared goal, not concerned with liking each other (Henderson, 1985; Kier 1998; Segal & Kestnbaum, 2002; Wong, Kolditz, Millen, & Potter, 2003). Even when military units have openly gay service members, there have been no negative reports related to unit cohesion (Berube, 1990; Osburn, 1995). Researchers have studied countries such as Britain, Australia, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands, and many others that have integrated homosexuals within their ranks and did not discover any negative consequences (D’Amico, 1996; Gade, Segal, & Johnson, 1996; Government Accountability Office, 1993; RAND, 1993). Furthermore, a study by Bateman and Dalvi (2004) found that openly gay, non-American service members have interacted and worked successfully with American military in multinational units and operations.
Unit cohesion has also been explored among police and fire departments, with researchers citing police structure and the close living conditions experienced by firefighters to be comparable with the military. The RAND Corporation (1993) examined police and fire departments that had policies of nondiscrimination against homosexuals in six large cities representing all the major regions of the United States. The researchers used intensive individual interviews and focus groups as well as reviewed department documentation, policies, regulations, equal employment procedures, and training programs. Although there were a few accounts of pranks, there were no negative incidences related to unit cohesion and no reports of harassment. It was also discovered from this study, and supported from a separate study (Leinen, 1993), that very few homosexuals revealed their orientation even though there was a nondiscrimination policy. Those who did reveal their homosexuality did so only after they felt that they would be accepted in their particular work environment.
The argument that homosexuals in the military pose a violation of heterosexual service member’s privacy rights has also been a topic of much research. Just as with the issue of unit cohesion, the majority of research indicates that the privacy concern is not a valid argument for preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. Kaplan (2003) and Shawver (1995) rationalize that heterosexuals and homosexuals already shower, use latrines, and basically share intimate environments with each other without any problems. Strategies such as mutual gaze aversion (Goffman, 1963) and etiquette of disregard (Shawver, 1996) are two social norms identified as means in which people prevent the feeling of their privacy being violated by consciously avoiding eye contact and averting their sight in a neutral direction away from others. These types of strategies are learned at an early age and have been observed to exist in settings such as college dormitories (Vivona & Gomillion, 1972) and prisons (Shawver & Kurdys, 1987).
The Department of Defense has proposed many reasons for not wanting to integrate homosexuals into the military and, just as was the case with other minority groups, their justifications are without merit. First, the Caucasian heterosexual male saw the African American as having character defects and thus as unacceptable for military service, only to be proven wrong (Kauth & Landis, 1996; Rolison & Nakayama, 1994). Females were seen as a threat to unit morale and effectiveness, yet when eventually integrated this was also proven to not be the case (Herek, 1996; Thomas & Thomas, 1996). Now the military is once again faced with the potential integration of another minority group. Although the justifications have been centered on concerns for morale and unit effectiveness, there is another reason that continues to go unspoken.
Margaret Cruikshank (1994) proposes the military does not want to accept homosexuals because it would advance the idea that they are equal to heterosexuals. Their integration would mean homosexuals are just as good at soldiering as heterosexuals. She speculates that the exclusion of homosexuals from the military is inherently political and is about discrimination and second class status. In a ruling against DADT, Judge Eugene Nickerson commented, “The known presence of homosexuals may disrupt the unit because heterosexual members may morally disapprove of homosexuals. This is an outright confession that ‘unit cohesion’ is a euphemism for catering to the prejudices of heterosexuals” (Brown & Ayres, 2004, p. 156). When the military, the largest employer in the United States, exemplifies that homosexuals should not be treated as equal citizens, it sets a terrible precedent for the civilian sector (Belkin, 2001).
Serving in Silence
The current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is a compromise that allows homosexuals to serve in the military on the condition that they do not reveal their sexual orientation and refrain from any homosexual behavior (Bowling, Firestone, & Harris, 2005). This requirement, however, imposes restrictions on speech and conduct of homosexuals that do not exist for heterosexuals (Herek, 1996). Sharing information such as dating, marital, or parental status is expected during casual conversation. The ability to self-disclose is beneficial to a person’s social life, whereas nondisclosure has been linked to loneliness and social isolation (Davis & Franzoi, 1986). A certain degree of self-disclosure is an integral component in common social interaction with an equal exchange of information expected or there likely will be a strain in the relationship (Fitzpatrick, 1987).
Homosexuals in the military are currently caught in a catch-22 predicament. By not revealing their sexual orientation they are withholding information and thus potentially deceiving their friends or colleagues. However, if they reveal their orientation they not only jeopardize their career, they are likely to be regarded as flaunting their sexuality (Herek, 1996). Heterosexist environments and nonsupportive social interactions have been highly correlated with depression and psychological distress (Smith & Ingram, 2004). Meyer (1995) identifies internalized homophobia, self-perceived stigma, and prejudice to be three major components related to minority stress. Johnson and Buhrke (2006) express concern for homosexual military personnel who may suffer from minority-related stress but are reluctant to pursue mental health services due to the military’s current anti-homosexual policy.
Research
Herek (1994) recommends the following three areas of empirical research needed to assist the military in understanding and potentially reducing prejudice: (1) military racial and gender integration; (2) experiences of other countries in the integration of homosexuals in the military; and (3) military personnel’s stereotypes and prejudices about gays and lesbians. The first two areas have been extensively researched as discussed previously. The third area of research has received very little attention. Very few studies have been conducted to actually measure the attitudes of active duty military personnel to determine their opinions on the subject, see Table 1.
| Military Personnel’s Attitudes Toward Homosexuals in the Military | ||||||
| Study | Purpose | Research method | Sample method | Response rate | Comparisongroup | Statisticalanalysis |
| Moskos & Miller (1993) | Survey views on gays in the military | Interviews, focus groups,surveys | Nonrandom, stratified | 2,471 men2,170 women | No | Bivariate, regression |
| Los Angeles Times (1993) | Survey attitudes of military personnel toward homosexuals | Surveys | Non-random, “mall intercept approach” Quota samples | 728 Army,591 Navy,488 Marines,539 Air Force | No | No data on statistical significance provided |
| Estrada & Weiss (1999) | Attitudes of Marines toward gays and lesbians | Surveys | Nonrandom, convenience | 72 Marines | No | Bivariate, Attitude scales |
A mixed method research study was conducted by Moskos and Miller (1993; also reported in Miller, 1994), including individual interviews, study groups, and questionnaires. The surveys distinguished participants to be either pro-ban or anti-ban, and thus were analyzed how they answered a series of questions. The U.S. service members in this study were from eight military installations, two national training centers, and several operating bases in Somalia. Miller interviewed 471 males and 470 females and distributed questionnaires to over 2,000 men and 1,700 women. The sample for the study was nonrandom and stratified with attempts to have cross-section representation of race, rank, and occupational specialties. The potential respondents were selected by military leaders and invited to participate. The researchers felt it would be inappropriate to enquire of a participant’s sexual orientation and that the responses would likely be unreliable considering the environment, thus sexual orientation of participants is unknown.
The results from Miller’s (1994) study found that 75% of the men and 43% of the women disagreed with the proposal to lift the ban. The main reasons for their position were: (a) homosexuality is immoral; (b) homosexuality would have adverse effects of cohesion, morale, and good discipline; and (c) the fear of intimate situations with someone of the same gender who may be attracted to them. Those who supported lifting the ban thought that: (a) the ban discriminates against minorities; (b) sexuality is not related to job performance; and (c) the ban has been ineffective in preventing homosexuals from joining the military. In this study, 8% of the men and 13% of the women were undecided on the issue. Miller discovered from this middle group that, although they felt the ban to be unfair, they had reservations in regards to the privacy issue.
The Los Angeles Times (1993) conducted a survey of 2,346 active duty personnel from 38 different military installations consisting of 728 Army, 591 Navy, 488 Marines, and 539 Air Force personnel. The method of recruiting the participants was a nonrandom convenience technique referred to as “mall intercept” approach. Military personnel at various locations around the installations were asked to participate. The researchers also utilized quota sampling to ensure they had appropriate representation of male, female, African American, Caucasian, and Latino personnel. The majority of respondents were against lifting the ban in different degrees, males being more in support of the ban than females. The issue of privacy was one of the major reasons for being against lifting the ban, as well as homosexuality being immoral. Although this study is hardly scientific, it is referred to in several different articles as well as this article, because of the limited amount of research in this area.
There are several limitations in the two previous studies that prevent the results from being generalizable beyond the actual individuals who were surveyed. Participants were either conveniently approached on or near military installations and asked to respond to questions relating to the ban of homosexuals in the military, or they were hand selected by military leaders, providing no anonymity or representation. Also, the way the questions and the Likert scale were designed allowed for only vague and inconclusive responses that cannot be accurately analyzed.
Estrada and Weiss (1999) used a 40-item questionnaire to measure the attitudes of 72 male Marines toward homosexuals. The Marine participants were from the same unit and ranged in age from 19 to 46, almost all had a high school diploma, and the majority reported some college. Of the 72 male Marines, 33 identified as Latino, 9 Asian, 3 African American, 24 Caucasian, and 3 were other. Two scales were used, the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay men (ATLG, Herek, 1994) and the Attitudes Toward Homosexuals in the Military (ATHM), designed by the researchers for this particular study. The ATLG was designed to be used to measure the attitudes of adult heterosexuals toward homosexuals and determined to have high construct and discriminate validity as well as high reliability with alpha levels for college students at .90 and non-students at .80 (Herek, 1994). The ATHM measure was determined to have good reliability with a Cronbach alpha of .87 (Estrada & Weiss).
Attitudes of heterosexuals toward homosexuals have been the focus of many research studies, however, the authors of this study state that, “none of this research has been carried out with military samples” (Estrada & Weiss, 1999, p. 86). They reported their findings to be similar to that of civilian studies with the majority of the respondents expressing mildly negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians in general, but more negative toward those in the military. The researchers also reported that although the respondents displayed negative attitudes toward homosexuals, the results indicate support for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Sixty-nine percent of the participants agreed that, “It is all right for gays and lesbians to be in the military as long as I don’t know who they are.”
Although the researchers made the attempt to survey military personnel, their methods do not provide for generalizable results. The Marine reservists were from Southern California with a disproportionately large number of Latino participants. Reservists do not live together in barracks but rather in their own homes off the installation. The ATLG scale is designed for heterosexuals, thus discounting the possibility that some of the respondents could be homosexual. The sample was small, nonrandom, and conveniently selected with all participants being from the same unit. Although the participant responses may have provided the results expected by the researchers, the study cannot be considered representative of the military toward homosexuals.
Integration Strategies
Most of the research regarding homosexuals in the military has been focused on the attitudes of heterosexuals. Indeed, with homosexuals being considered as second class citizens (Cruikshank, 1994), why would their perspective of the discriminatory policy be considered? The reality is that homosexuals are simply trying to live their lives just as heterosexuals and be judged on their performance (Lehring, 2003). Colonel Cammermeyer, a retired lesbian army officer who successfully challenged the military’s ban on homosexuals stated, “What I hope to represent is a part of the normality of being homosexual, of not being in leather or shaving my hair, but rather showing how much we are all alike. If people can see the sameness of me to you, then perhaps they won’t have the walls that make it so that they have to hate us” (Egan, 1992). This statement is supported by social science research.
Based on the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954), contact between two groups can reduce intergroup hostility. The contact Allport specifies must take place between two groups who share equal status. Although that is not the case for homosexuals in the military, the hypothesis has been tested in the civilian sector. Surveys using nationally representative probability samples indicate that heterosexuals who have personal contact with gay men and lesbians have more positive attitudes toward them than those heterosexuals who lacked the contact experience (Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Herek & Glunt, 1993). This was also the case in the research examining the integration of homosexuals in police and fire departments.
Positive contact was determined to be the most influential determinant of attitudinal change among heterosexual police and fire fighters toward homosexual colleagues (RAND, 1993). The heterosexual participants in the study were surprised to discover that their gay and lesbian colleagues had full, well-formed lives and stable relationships, and that they were not out looking for anonymous sex. Advocates for integration believe that ignorance will give way to knowledge and understanding when people are exposed to accurate information about homosexuals (Baumeister, Hutton, & Tice, 1989; Conley, Devine, Rabow, & Evett, 2002; RAND, 1993).
To effectively integrate homosexuals into the military, a workable standard must be established in which all personnel are judged by their own performance and they must respect each other’s privacy (Herek & Belkin, 2005). The policy must be enforced and supported at all levels allowing for individuals to perceive that compliance with the new policy is in their own self interest (MacCoun, 1996). It is important to ensure that the individuals who will be implementing the policy receive training on how to address and solve potential challenges (Herek & Belkin, 2005). Zellman (1996) describes how policies imposed from outside an organization are often met with resistance; therefore, it is important for personnel to be ensured that the change will not be harmful and that it will result in gains for the organization.
Herek and Belkin (2005) share lessons from implementation literature that recommend new policies need to be implemented as quickly as possible. Prior to implementation, individuals may become unsure and anxious about how the new policy will affect them. A swift implementation process will allow personnel to realize that little change has actually occurred. Another concern for delayed implementation is that it allows those opposed to the new policy to consolidate and express their resistance. Herek and Belkin explain that a fast implementation process will send a signal from the leadership of their commitment to the new policy.
The military is not new to including minorities within its ranks. Drawing from previous experience of integrating African Americans and females, the military can incorporate what worked well and avoid past strategies that failed. In previous minority integration programs, the military attempted to change attitudes and beliefs through sensitivity training and cultural education sessions (Kauth & Landis, 1996; Thomas, 1988). These attempts were met with resistance, resentment, and hostility from Caucasian participants who were required to attend. The military changed its strategy and shifted its focus from attitudes to behavior. As discovered from foreign military units and U.S. police and fire departments with nondiscrimination policies, once heterosexual personnel realized that there really is no difference in homosexual behavior in the work environment, their attitudes changed.
Future Research
Homosexuals have been considered to be mentally unfit for military service, a threat to national security, morally objectionable to heterosexuals, disruptive to unit cohesion, and violators of heterosexual privacy. Researchers and scholars have explored each of these rationales for preventing homosexuals from serving openly in the U.S. military and have determined them to all be baseless and irrational. Nonetheless, the military’s anti-homosexual policy perseveres. Therefore, one could argue that science and research alone are not going to change the minds of those who make the decision regarding allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly for their country.
Further research is necessary as a means to continue monitoring other countries and their progress in their implementation of homosexuals within their militaries. Also, further research is necessary in monitoring the attitudes of active duty American military personnel. There are very few studies that have attempted to examine this population and those that have were narrow in scope and thus not representative of the military as a whole. However, continued compilation of data that supports the integration is not likely to change the military/government anti-homosexual policy. The fact that all previous rationales for the ban have been easily discounted is evidence that they were merely weightless excuses for the real reason that was exposed by Judge Nickerson (Brown & Ayres, 2004): prejudice.
The government’s prejudice attitude toward homosexuality must be examined further in order for the policy to be changed. Republicans and conservative political ideology have been linked to negative attitudes toward homosexuals (Estrada & Weiss, 1999). Bierly (1985) found self-identified Republicans to be more prejudiced toward homosexuals than Democrats or Independents. Herek (1994) discovered that heterosexuals who reported being religious were more likely to have negative attitudes toward homosexuals than heterosexuals who were not religious. In all of the research that examined attitudes toward homosexuals, the issue of morality was one of the reasons for people’s negative opinion. As was shown with the contact hypothesis, people’s attitudes improved after having positive contact with gay men and lesbians.
Research has shown the actual implementation of an anti-homosexual policy is likely to have limited if any adverse effects on the military. Perhaps further research is needed to examine the relationship between religion and politics on discrimination and oppression of homosexuals. Implementation research has demonstrated the importance of leadership toward effective implementation. Therefore it stands to reason that if the government and top-level military leaders demonstrate prejudiced attitudes toward homosexuals, then the public and military personnel will incorporate that same attitude.
Discussion
Gay men and lesbian women join the military to take advantage of the same opportunities offered to heterosexuals: education benefits, social mobility, and to be patriotic (Adam, 1994). The current policy allows homosexuals to join and to serve with their presence acknowledged (although anonymous) and actually respected. The fraternal framework of the military is likely not as fragile or homophobic as Congress and some military leaders presume it to be. Therefore, the policy of allowing homosexuals to serve in the military, albeit covertly, is likely to further their acceptance within the infrastructure, as described by the contact hypothesis.
The dilemma for Congress and the military leadership is to maintain its opposition to allowing homosexuals in the military, while at the same time acknowledging that homosexuals have served honorably throughout American military history. The rationale of excluding homosexuals from the military is not based on any evidence to justify the action, but rather formulated purely through speculation. The continued exclusion of homosexuals from the military, therefore, is based on a premise of what might happen, rather than on etiological factors.
Recent surveys regarding people’s attitudes toward allowing homosexuals in the military indicate broad support. A survey of the American public in 2003 showed that 79% of respondents support gays and lesbians in the military (Price, 2004). A Gallup poll of 18- to 29-year-old civilians found that 91% oppose the anti-gay ban, and a survey of military personnel indicated that 50% support allowing gays to serve openly in the military (Price, 2004). Nearly three in four U.S. military personnel (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians (Zogby International & the Michael D. Palm Center, 2006). One in four military personnel who served in Afghanistan or Iraq knew a member of their unit who was gay, and more than 55% who know a gay colleague said the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit is well known by others (Zogby International, 2006). Although these surveys are not scientific or generalizable of military or public opinion, they do indicate a trend of increasing support for allowing gays to serve openly in the military as well as a potential disconnect between military personnel and their leadership.