Author Patricia Nell Warren Responds to American Legion Article re: Gays In The Military

Forwarded Message:
Subj:   Gays in the Military
Date:   05/31/2000 10:25:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:   WildcatPrs
To: leg@legion.org

=================

Gentlemen:

I read Fred Peck's article on gays in the military with great interest, and want to offer some comments, as a member of a family that has served our country since the 1700s. I am also a published author and former editor for the Reader's Digest (22 years there as a book editor). My forebears and relatives have fought in every U.S. war, starting with the Revolution, and served in every branch of the armed forces.   My grandfather Col. Otey Yancey Warren US Army served in World War I. My uncle Lt. John Potter USMC was at Pearl Harbor and served in the Pacific, later flew experimental jet aircraft and was in the first round of astronaut selection. A cousin of mine was a submarine commander in World War II.

My brother Lt. Conrad Warren USAF served in Vietnam. Some of them belonged to the American Legion. Various family members distinguished themselves in other ways in the cause of freedom...some of my native American forebears were Dog Soldiers and fought for tribal freedom. My greatgreatgrandfather Col. Patrick Flinn died for Irish freedom fighting the British at the Battle of the Boyne. My greatgranduncle John Bielenberg fought against Bismarck's militarism during the war between Denmark and Prussia. Both my Irish and German forebears left Europe and came to the U.S. in search of democracy. I am proud of my family's record of service in the cause of freedom and human rights.

I am also gay, and have written about gay war veterans in my best-selling novels The Front Runner, Harlan's Race and Billy's Boy. This past weekend, I was a special guest of the Palm Springs Gay Veterans as their president, Sgt. Tom Swann USMC, and other members participated openly for the first time in Memorial Day services of the Desert Veterans Memorial Assn. at the cemetery in Palm Springs, CA. It was the first time that the word "gay" was ever uttered publicly at a veterans memorial service in the state of California, perhaps in the nation at large. The flags flew, the bugle played taps -- and the sky didn't fall as World War II Navy veteran Daryl James and I stood at the mike, and Daryl presented a wreath from the Palm Springs Gay Veterans in memory of fallen gay vets. For many years Daryl had been coming privately to the cemetery on Memorial Day and placing flowers on the graves of two gay buddies who died in WWII and Korea. He wept openly as he was finally able to pay public tribute.

Yes, the sky didn't fall. Indeed, during and after the ceremony, not one straight officer or veteran who was there, nor any of the visiting brass or Palm Springs dignitaries, had a single word of protest at the gay veterans' participation. This in a city, and a region, that is known for its conservatism. Perhaps they recognized that the time has come for the U.S. military to end its disgraceful and dishonorable policy that not only railroads gay service members out of uniform, but denies the sacrifices of gay women and men who gave their lives for American freedom.

The fact is: 320,000 Americans died in World War II. Going by the accepted figure that +-10 percent of the population is gay, that means that +-32,000 gay men and women died to help our country defeat the Germans and Japanese. They didn't enlist because of their personal sexuality, nor did they die because of their sexuality. They fought and died because they loved their country and wanted to answer the call. At the least, they were drafted and felt it was their duty to go.

Likewise... 70,000 men and women died in Vietnam; around 7000 of them were gay, giving their lives in that war that was supposed to contain communism in Southeast Asia. So Mr. Peck's argument that gays shouldn't serve in the military is moot. IT'S TIME FOR STRAIGHT AMERICANS TO RECOGNIZE THAT GAY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DYING FOR THEIR COUNTRY FOR 300 YEARS. Straight people who hate gay people must recognize the uncomfortable fact that they enjoy their freedom of speech, their very freedom to vent their disapproval of gay sexuality, in part to sacrifices of gay lives on the battlefield. The blood of gay men and straight men has run together in the trenches. A few officers known to be gay served under Washington in the Revolution. Gay soldiers helped straight soldiers to end slavery in the U.S. Gay men and straight men died together in no-man's land in World War I, walked the Bataan Death March together, were POWs together in Korea. Lesbian army nurses died taking care of straight wounded soldiers in Vietnam. It is disgraceful and dishonorable for the United States to disavow the sacrifices of gay lives in the cause of freedom. And it is time for the American Legion to recognize this inescapable fact.

Let's be honest. "Don't ask, don't tell" is peacetime mickeymouse. In the past, openly purging the U.S. ranks of homosexuals was never done in wartime. Despite the pro forma World War II enlistment question "Are you a homosexual?", there was no "don't ask" in the 1940s. The U.S. needed every man's energy to fight. Likewise, the U.S. military ignored the known lesbian presence in the new women's service branches, because women were important in the war effort. Indeed, nothing would be more devastating to U.S. troop morale during wartime than this kind of "don't ask" witch-hunting in the ranks, surveillance of individual soldiers' personal lives, etc. Every straight combat veteran with whom I have talked about this, including my much-loved Marine uncle John, has admitted to me that he knew of gay men in his unit...that their sexuality was never an issue. What mattered in wartime was courage and skill -- whether a man could be trusted on the battlefield, whether he could shoot straight.

In the book "Conduct Unbecoming," Randy Shilts tells of a gay officer on a U.S. battleship during the Vietnam War. His commanding officer, and everybody on the ship, knew he was gay. They also knew he was the best at his job. So nobody had a problem with his sexual orientation. Yes, if the U.S. were involved today in a major ongoing war, we would surely see "don't ask, don't tell" vanish into the clouds of battle smoke, in the interests of maintaining troop morale.

Perhaps if the American Legion is willing to recognize and remember the nation's gay dead, you could also muster respect for the living -- for the patriotism and dedication of living gay and lesbian soldiers. Your organization could call for an end to "don't ask, don't tell," instead of supporting it so obsessively as you have. The U.S. military have way more pressing peacetime problems that relate to morale and readiness -- REAL problems, like the growing racism and skinhead presence in the ranks, or the present unrest over compulsory anthrax vaccination, etc. etc.

The fact that we hear so much about "the gay problem" from our brass, and from writers like Mr. Peck, and so little about the "skinhead problem," leads me to question their ability to identify and prioritize real problems.   The fact that millions of dollars are spent on fingering, prosecuting and discharging gay men and women, especially officers that the military have spent additional millions to train, is a shocking example of military waste -- right up there with $800 toiletseats.

I hope that the American Legion will have the courage to print my rebuttal in your magazine. I hope that your membership will think deeply about what they personally owe to gay lives lost on their behalf.

Very sincerely yours,

Patricia Nell Warren
Wildcat Press
8306 Wilshire Blvd. Box 8306
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
323/966-2466
323/966-2467 fax

============================

From American Legion Magazine at:
www.legion.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Problem with Gays in the Military
----------------------------------------------
By Fred Peck

June 2000 Issue, Vol. 148, No. 6

AFTER RETURNING from Somalia in 1993, I testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee concerning President Clinton's proposal to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. My appearance became even more emotional after I learned - just three days prior to my testimony - that the eldest of my sons was gay.

I supported the ban before I found out, I supported it the day I testified and I support it now. I base my opinion upon personal experience of more than 30 years of military service, not on the character or worth of individuals. I love my son, but I do not believe he or any avowed homosexual should serve in our armed forces.

The outgrowth of those hearings was codified in the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on homosexuals in the military. That policy reiterates Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which grants Congress the power to raise and support armies, provide for and maintain a Navy, and to make rules for the governing and regulation of the land and naval forces.

That section also pointed out that "there is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces," and that "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." UCMJ Crime. The policy's basic premise - that homosexuality is incompatible with military service - was not altered. Homosexual conduct remained a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The only change in policy was a nuance: that the military would not ask volunteers about their sexual orientation; and as long as they didn't tell anyone about their sexual orientation, they could, in theory, serve in the military as long as no one knew about it. In fact, nothing much had changed, but the president was given a face-saving way out of a confrontation with Congress.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was intellectually dishonest and detrimental to gays and lesbians who might join the military under the misconception that they were under no threat of punishment. However, in the realm of political compromises in Washington, it was a policy I could live with. Why am I opposed to gays openly serving in the military? Fundamentally, it is an issue of privacy for those who serve. Military service entails enough sacrifices of personal privacy without subjecting individuals to living in close quarters with persons of a different sexual orientation. I can find no solution for that aspect of the issue. I know of no college or university that will compel a person to share a dormitory room with a person of a different sexual orientation. Even if one did, a student always has the option of leaving that institution or living elsewhere. Conditions of military service do not provide those options.

Is it fair to discriminate against homosexuals who want to serve? Congress and the courts have long determined that military service is unique and the military can discriminate against people based upon age, weight, height, physical or mental ability, vision, hearing and, to a certain extent, gender. The paramount reason for such discrimination is to ensure our military will prevail in combat. It is an issue of life and death.

Just Another Job? People who have never served in the military, would never serve, and who would actively discourage their children from serving want to treat military service as just another job. Advocates for lifting the ban offer no evidence that it would enhance our ability to fight and win, or even that it would be neutral to combat readiness. They advocate the ban should be lifted because it is unfair. Life is unfair.

Combat is even more unfair. Critics point to the previous ban against racial minorities serving and say the military should again lead the way. Gen. Colin Powell, the only African-American to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, rejected that argument. Race says nothing about behavior, he pointed out, but sexual orientation is all about behavior.

Why invite people into an environment of minimal personal privacy and tempt them to behave in a manner which is their predilection, at the risk of serious punishment if they do? That's like going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting to recruit bartenders. As one late-night show comedian quipped, "If the military lifts its ban on gays in the military, the Marines will have to change their recruiting slogan from 'We're Looking For A Few Good Men' to 'It's Raining Men.'"

Late last year the president expressed amazement that nearly 1,100 personnel a year had been discharged over the past three years because of sexual orientation. He spoke of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy as if it were something foreign to him.

The Pentagon confirmed the numbers. More than 5,400 service members were discharged for homosexuality between 1994 and 1999. Frank Rush, assistant secretary of defense for Force Management and Policy, pointed out that 83.5 percent were due to "voluntary statements." In other words, no one asked; but they voluntarily told. Rush also noted that more than half of those admissions occurred during the first six months of their enlistments. A 1998 Pentagon study found that almost 60 percent occurred during the first year of enlistment. Can it be that gays are entering military service under the false perception that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" means toleration for homosexual conduct? Recruits are required to receive instruction on the punitive articles of the UCMJ during recruit training. What a shock it must be to them that homosexual conduct between consenting adults could result in being sent to a military prison. Could that be why so many of them opt out during the first six months of their service?

Wouldn't it be more ethical and less expensive to tell them from the outset that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and that homosexual conduct is a serious crime under the UCMJ? Following the president's lead, Vice President Al Gore and former Sen. Bill Bradley quickly came out for lifting the ban on gays in the military. The vice president even went so far as to say that he could use the issue as a litmus test for "those who wanted to serve on the Joint Chiefs to be in agreement with (lifting the ban)." The president could order the Defense Department to allow openly gay and lesbian people to serve, but I do not believe he could order his subordinates to ignore the punitive article of the UCMJ making homosexual conduct a crime. A commander in chief cannot change the UCMJ. In fact, the UCMJ requires officers to report incidents in which they believe the UCMJ may have been violated. Simply put, conduct is punishable even if orientation is not.

The Recruiting Aspect. Lifting the ban on gays and lesbians would impact recruiting. Only the Marine Corps has been meeting its goals, and even the Corps admits it will have trouble in the year ahead. Can anyone argue that the presence of openly gay and lesbian service members would improve recruiting?

High school graduates whom the Marines seek might balk if they considered they might be sentencing themselves to four years in a gay bathhouse. [Do you believe this?!] Are parents ready to allow their children to be led into combat by a gay or lesbian platoon leader? Anyone who has served in the military knows the power that individuals hold over their subordinates in training and operational environments. It is the power of life and death. Unit cohesion is often the difference between winning or losing, or living or dying. Can anyone argue that having a flagrantly gay leader will enhance the survivability of that unit? In my considered opinion, the answer is "no."

Many major religious denominations in America will not ordain openly gay and lesbian clergy. If a large portion of our population does not support homosexuals in the role of counselor to their congregations, would they accept them as leaders and counselors of their children serving in the military?

Lifting the ban has great support in the news media, and from 20 years' experience in dealing with the media as a Marine Corps spokesman I'll tell you why. Almost every journalist knows and works with homosexuals every day in their newsrooms. Very few journalists have ever served in the military or know any of their peers who have served. That biases their reporting. To these journalists, most of whom grew up in the era of the all-volunteer force, the military is for the rejects - the people who went to the military as the employer of last resort. To them, being in the military is just taking advantage of another federal job program. They haven't a clue as to what military life entails. Don't expect that to change, except, unfortunately, for the worse. If the ban were lifted, I told the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1993 they would have to write a very thick, new rulebook. It's hard enough to deal with a military population that is mainly between 18 and 22 years of age. It's a sea of raging hormones that leaders struggle each day to control. Sometimes leadership fails, as it did at the Army's Aberdeen, Md., training base where male instructors were preying upon vulnerable female recruits. Critics of the gay ban cite that as an example of why heterosexuals can't be trusted. Sometimes they can't; but at least you can separate the players without a score card.

I am not a homophobe; I'm just being practical. Real leaders have to deal with really tough issues. The problems they confront become even harder to deal with the closer they get to the sound of the guns.

Fred Peck, a retired Marine colonel, served as a senior spokesman for Operation Restore Hope in Somalia. © American Legion Magazine

Servicemember's Legal Defense Network

CREDITS:
The midi playing on this page (Island Moods) and the one playing on the next page (Sandsong) are original compositions by Don Carroll. They can be found at: Don Carroll's Midi Riff-Bulge Page. I highly recommend the site.

Questions....comments...? E-mail me.

© 1999 phillyphag@yahoo.com

JõHÑÑ®2'Š Hõ/\/\èpÃgè