Recently, Senator Sam Nunn, head of the Armed Services Committee, touts the gay ban compromise in the Senate as a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The military will no longer ask recruits about their sexual orientation, nor will it conduct investigations to oust homosexuals. But, this also entails a strict code of conduct forbidding harassment, holding hands and same-sex dancing.
Basically, this compromise is a farce. Homosexuals still may not serve in the armed forces, at least not as homosexuals. And while technically the military is not allowed to sniff out suspected homosexuals, it seems that it wouldn't take much to oust them once a complaint has been made by another officer.
Witness the comments of General Norman Schwarzkopf during a hearing of the Armed Services Committee. When asked if reading a magazine that catered to homosexuals constituted homosexual activity and therefore, grounds for dismissal, General Schwarzkopf said no. But he added a qualification. If a soldier was reading this magazine "in the barracks on a continuous basis to the point where it caused all those around you to be concerned about your sexual orientation and it started to cause polarization within your outfit," the soldier could be removed.
Who is to draw this distinction? A bunch of homophobic Marines? Does Schwarzkopf mean to tell the public that heterosexual men in the military don't openly read copies of Playboy or Penthouse ? If they do I'm sure this isn't grounds for a dishonorable discharge.
There are two basic problems with this supposed compromise. Number one is that "don't ask, don't tell" assumes that homosexuality is a choice. Gay and lesbian individuals don't like to be "in the closet." They would like to be open about their sexuality, but they are afraid of a society that is hostile to them.
This is why "coming out" is such a big step for homosexual people. After all, why would anybody choose a life-style that is despised by society? To force gay and lesbian officers to hide their sexual orientation in every way is to make them hide their selves. This seems inherently unfair and downright cruel.
The second problem is that sexuality has no place in a work environment. Events at Tailhook, the naval conference at which women officers were repeatedly fondled and harassed, show that overt sexuality of any kind is damaging to morale.
While homosexual men should not be ogling or harassing their fellow officers in the shower, neither should male officers treat their female colleagues in a sexually degrading manner. The real issue should not be whether someone is homosexual, it should be whether someone's sexuality, of whatever orientation, is getting in the way of his or her job performance. Conduct should be the issue, not orientation.
The fact is that homosexuals have always been in the military, and by and large the performance of the U.S. Armed Forces has always been stellar. What is damaging is that sexual offenders are shielded from punishment by the Navy, while at the same time innocent people in all branches of the Armed Services who are good at their jobs are ferreted out because of their sexual orientation.
