Gays in the Military: Foreign Armies’ Experience
I have praised the way the president has been moving to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) because he has been working with military commanders to develop a means to effect repeal without compromising the effectiveness of our armed forces.
To see that it is possible for gay people to serve openly while retaining military morale and unit cohesion, one only look at the examples of the nations which allow gays to serve openly in the military, including one nation which faces threats to its survival on an almost daily basis and has thus developed one of the world’s most effective armed services. I’m speaking of course of Israel.
Thus, I was pleased to learn this week that this spring the Palm Center, a research institute of the University of California, Santa Barbara whose work of late has focused on gays in the military, will will be including officials of the Israel Defense Forces (as well as representatives of other NATO militaries) in a “Washington, D.C. summit of officials and experts from military forces that allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly“.
Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center, cited three questions raised about “twenty-five foreign forces that allow open gay service:”
Did the decision to allow open gay service undermine military readiness? How was implementation managed? To what extent can lessons from abroad help U.S. officials plan for an inclusive policy?
This conference can only help ease doubts among those who believe allowing gays to serve openly in the military is merely a social experiment or perhaps done to please an interest group without regard for the welfare of our armed forces.
Ken Adelman who served as Ambassador and Arms Control Director in the Reagan Administration agrees:
The British, Australian, and Israeli militaries all now have solid experience with open gays in uniform. Their forces don’t suffer in performance; the gay service members there don’t seem to upset the straight members much. And U.S. forces, though in far greater numbers, don’t differ culturally or functionally too much from their colleagues in these militaries.
22 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
this is definitely welcome development. the argument that culturally similar countries like the uk, canada and australia allow their gay soldiers to serve openly, should definitely allay fears and ease doubts.
the israeli example should definitely annihilate remaining legitimate unease with changing the 17 yr-old policy, given that country’s constant state of war (though i expect some people will argue that in this case, the imperative for defense is such that everybody must serve and thus we can’t really compare our situation with israel’s; i would disagree with that position).
and even non-anglo armies like france’s (third global military spending, china being number 2), germany’s, or italy’s, which are all nato allies and all in the top 10 in military expenditure, should definitely participate and share their experience in the matter.
Comment by daftpunkydavid — February 9, 2010 @ 4:05 am - February 9, 2010
I would have loved it if you have taken this argument to the tea party convention.
If you got past the Prayers condemning the immorality of being gay, you might have done some good to change minds.
Comment by gillie — February 9, 2010 @ 9:33 am - February 9, 2010
Since most conservatives, and probably all Tea Party people, support the state of Israel, the fact that gays serve openly in the Israeli army should be convincing argument. Especially since they will be the army of the Lord when the Rapture comes.
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 9, 2010 @ 9:39 am - February 9, 2010
Prayers like Fred PHelps gillie?
Try answering the topic for once.
Comment by The_Livewire — February 9, 2010 @ 10:48 am - February 9, 2010
Hmm, interesting comment in this piece defending DADT. It indicates that Israel does allow homosexuals to serve, but not on the front line. Anyone care to confirm or deny it?
Personal aside, I’m offended that anyone would lie about their orientation or come out with it to get out of a duty they volunteered for.)
Comment by The_Livewire — February 9, 2010 @ 11:07 am - February 9, 2010
Openly gay soldiers in IDF Isreal serve without hindrance in all branches of the military. Wiki. . .
Plus http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362505,00.html follow Isreal’s example on gays in the military, US study 02.08.07
Comment by rusty — February 9, 2010 @ 11:19 am - February 9, 2010
But it is interesting that we should look to other countries for support of the repeal of DADT and to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. . .
The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Norway, Sweden and South Africa are the only countries in which the legal status of same-sex marriages is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriages.
Spain, Canada, Netherlands, South Africa, Netherlands, Belgium and Norway permit Homosexuals to serve in the military.
In the United Kingdom, civil partnerships were introduced in 2005. The law gives civil partners the same benefits and associated legal rights of marriage; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. The one notable exception is the use of courtesy titles by the partner of a male peer or knight. In the first year, 16,100 ceremonies took place.[84] Civil unions in New Zealand are identical to British civil partnerships in their association with equivalent spousal rights and responsibilities to marriage.
in every Australian government jurisdiction a wide range of rights to de facto same-sex couples is exactly equal to those afforded to de facto opposite-sex couples is provided. These rights are gained without registration, under a status called “unregistered cohabitation”. Furthermore, formal domestic partnership registries exist in Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. Since 1 July 2009, same-sex couples are recognised as de facto partners in a wide range of legislation in every Australian government jurisdiction, including superannuation, social security, health care and taxation. wiki
Comment by rusty — February 9, 2010 @ 11:28 am - February 9, 2010
Let’s see, gillie, i’ve posted numerous pieces here and on other web-sites on DADT repeal, at least one of them linked by Glenn Reynolds who is a big supporter of the tea party movement and has traffic leaps (and leaps and leaps) and bounds above our own. So, I’m doing what I can. Sorry that it’s not good enough for you.
But, then again, nothing would be.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 9, 2010 @ 11:33 am - February 9, 2010
Thank you for the info rusty.
Comment by The_Livewire — February 9, 2010 @ 11:39 am - February 9, 2010
Patriotism Is Not Defined by Sexuality.
That’s right, Patriotism. National pride, duty, honor, courage, commitment and the intestinal fortitude to show it. Hopefully in a year or so this will be a moot point, but until then, we ought to remind ourselves as often as possible that any man or woman in this country willing to lay it all on the line for Lady Liberty ought to be afforded the opportunity, regardless of their sexual orientation.
We have enough enemies in this world; dangerous, lethally skilled, motivated, if not fanatical combatives determined to end our existence. We need not further induce any self-inflicted wounds by dismissing intellectually competent and highly skilled service members based on antigay agendas. Make no mistake about it, the current law has left our troops with a paucity of talent in several critical areas vital to our success in the fight, and essentially our national security.
As a nation, we need to apply our best efforts into every aspect of military might. That being said, understand the military is a discerning body, and a biased organization – if you’re flat footed, can’t see colors well, are obese, physically handicapped, or cannot pass the ASVAB test, among others, you cannot serve. Period. These restrictions exist for preserving, among others, safety and performance of our troops. A personal choice on sexuality is no more applicable than a religious choice, and it does not belong in the debate. It’s flagrant discrimination. Period.
Let’s not over-engineer the mechanics in this imminent reform. The bureaucrats will change the law and sleep in warm, dry beds, safely out of harm’s way. In time, the military will follow suit. Given their brutally difficult missions, I doubt too many of our beloved troops are going to take pause to question DADT being repealed. They’re IN a real fight.
America’s lineage is rife with legislation considered preposterous by today’s standards. Pick one: women’s voting rights, eugenics, racial integrity, minorities voting, alcohol prohibition, civil rights, women on warships. These are old, tired, dare I say immature arguments that unfortunately became law; indicative of insular, polar thinking monopolized by an elite few in power to influence the masses. These laws eventually changed because we as a people evolved with the help of greater and better information, education, civic involvement, technology and time. Our President is the offspring of an interracial marriage – an illegal practice in countless states at the time of his birth. Our Speaker of the House could not have voted were she alive a century ago. Far be it from anyone today to reintroduce a bill that addresses any of these issues, as they’d clearly be dismissed as absurd, pathetic, if not shameful. Social awareness and political maturity are true blessings of liberty, and we need to celebrate them.
This is not a partisan issue, nor is it about the DOJ assessing the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of DADT. Several of our NATO allies have embraced the practice – there’s no reason we cannot as well. We have gay congressmen that vote to send our youth to war. Their performance capability as lawmakers is not diminished by their sexual orientation. Many of them have been re-elected for multiple terms.
The diversity in opinion on this issue at the highest levels of our military is not troubling, it’s a bellwether. Allowing openly gay troops to serve will no more lead to the demise of our military than when blacks were integrated into the ranks, or when women were allowed to serve on warships. There were issues with integration and there have been issues with females serving on ship, but we navigated those challenges deftly. This is about evolving. Military commanders obey the laws they are issued by the President and Congress and they maintain good order & discipline with sound leadership, incessant training and the UCMJ, whether racial, gender or sexual issues are at hand. Trust them, they know what they’re doing.
The CJCS just testified he’s served with gays his entire career – over forty years. Is anyone naïve enough to think that’s when it actually started? Five will get you fifty that gays have been serving our military as far back as the earliest citizen soldiers. It’s unlikely that any of the minutemen paused to question anyone’s sexuality when the order came to take up arms in our revolution.
I was on active duty in 1992 when Clinton was elected. Prior to his inauguration, the officers in our battalion were gathered for what we thought would be our normal weekly leadership discussion. Instead, our boss tabled the issue of gays being allowed to serve; then he sat back and watched. The ensuing debate was intensely visceral, if not utterly shocking. There were stories told of officers threatening to resign elsewhere in the military – some did. Some made articulate arguments about change and the challenge of command to effectively usher the transition. But the lion’s share of discourse was about the horror to come. Fear of the change drove some highly irrational comments that transformed men I thought were respectful, intelligent, well educated gentlemen into morons. Some were bluntly opposed and didn’t consider the options. Others laughed and scoffed at the notion as if it would never happen. One officer was screaming, fist extended, veins bulging from his neck as he cursed the day gays would serve in his unit. He was unchained as saliva sprayed during his rant. The energy & zeal in most of their logic was disturbing.
Our military prowess depends on myriad factors, not the least of which is focus. Gays allowed to serve without discrimination will be relieved of the additional burdens and stressors of the existing stigma. It is time we respected these talented professionals for the tremendous skills and unmatched courage they offer to keep us all safe. The unequivocal fact we have the most powerful and proficient military on the planet based entirely on an all volunteer force is a privilege we’ve enjoyed for decades. I find it unconscionable that any responsible military leader, after reposing special trust and confidence in the fidelity and abilities of any service member, would retract their judgment based solely on the person’s sexuality.
I’m a heterosexual, Irish-Catholic, father of six, Republican, former Marine and I get it. Polls are reporting 70% of Americans support gays serving. Congress is 31 votes away from passing a bill to repeal the law. Any politician concerned about longevity ought to take notice. This is going to happen.
Every man & woman of age and able to support & defend the Constitution of the United States ought to be afforded the opportunity to do so. The document was written after all, “in order to form a more perfect union.”
Yes, I think I remember reading that somewhere.
Comment by Brian Lynch — February 9, 2010 @ 12:30 pm - February 9, 2010
When I enlisted during the Viet Nam War my one concern was about how was I, a gay man, going to suvive the three years of military service. After basic and AIT it was an enjoyable two and half years. In fact couple of guys I went through training with; we came out to each other. After rotating back I was at Ft. Meade. One of my favorite haunts was a little gay bar in Baltimore called The Club Bar. One friday night at 10:00P.M. , the fairly full, I counted 27 patrons of which nine, including myself,, were military personnel; not only from Meade but Ft Holobird and Aberdeen Proving Grounds. One was a captain, I and two others sergeants, the rest wer spec 4´s and pfc´s. The next largest group (5)were beauticians. To my knowledge all of us received honorable discharges. In the PBS program, Before Stonewall, several people gave accounts of their service during WW!!. It is apossiblity that more gays served honorably than were discharged. I would be willing to sign a petition with other gay vets to repeal DADT and allow openly gay and lesbians to serve their country. I have no benefits to lose other than buying a property.
Comment by Roberto — February 9, 2010 @ 12:57 pm - February 9, 2010
Hat tip Peter Hughes – Here is a recent WSJ editorial piece on gays in the military:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703427704575051622368312934.html
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 9, 2010 @ 1:19 pm - February 9, 2010
(yikes, wsj.com let me read the whole thing once… I can’t bring it up a second time. Sorry if that means others will have trouble with the link)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 9, 2010 @ 1:21 pm - February 9, 2010
“So, I’m doing what I can. Sorry that it’s not good enough for you. But, then again, nothing would be.”
Where in my comment did I say that?
Answer: I didn’t
Good on you! 1 linked article by a rightie website!
I hope for more.
Many of the rightie folks on this site talk about the importance of showing the moonbat rights that maybe gays aren’t so bad.
I just thought that the tea party convention would be a good place for you to put your theories into action.
When are you going to do more?
Comment by gillie — February 9, 2010 @ 1:31 pm - February 9, 2010
gillie, if you want to buy me a ticket to attend the next tea party convention, I’ll be delighted to attend and make the case for repealing the ban.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 9, 2010 @ 1:53 pm - February 9, 2010
Dan,
Funny how you praise Obama for addressing the very same social issues that you advocate that Republicans ignore. Funny how they are “divisive” and “not winning issues” when Republicans address issues that the majority of Americans agree with them on, but they are praiseworthy when Democrats campaign and govern on social issues when Americans agree with them.
Perhaps you would appear less hypocritical if you would stop trying to pretend that your advice to Republicans is based on anything but your own personal support for social liberalism.
Trying to claim it is electorally advisable for Republicans to ignore issues that majorities of Americans in even the bluest states agree with them on has always been painfully, transparently silly from the beginning.
Sorry, I know you don’t appreciate the disagreement, or me for making it, but it must be said.
Comment by American Elephant — February 9, 2010 @ 6:23 pm - February 9, 2010
I sure hope integration works out better than anyone expected because we really can’t afford to divert time and energy away from the fiscal fight against leftists.
Comment by Joshua A. Schaeffer — February 9, 2010 @ 8:48 pm - February 9, 2010
Gays would be idiots not be in the Israeli army, considering the open arms and loving brotherhood the neighbors have for gays.
Comment by heliotrope — February 9, 2010 @ 10:54 pm - February 9, 2010
Military service is also compulsory in Israel isn’t it? Kind of hard for recruitment to go down when service is mandatory.
The US military, on the other hand, is all volunteer and better because of it. Now, those volunteers are disproportionately fundamentalist Christian. Not saying that will cause a problem, only saying its possible.
It will not be good for the United States to allow Gays in the Military if it harms overall recruitment. And in the worst case scenario, and ultimate irony, the United States has to begin drafting people, including young liberal, non-military supporters of repealing DADT.
Many, if not most, of the same people who are now demanding the repeal of DADT would be the first to flee to Canada if the US had to reinstate the draft.
I am with Kathleen Parker: The military is not an appropriate place for social experimentation. Equality is irrelevant here. The one and ONLY justifiable reason to repeal DADT is if it improves military readiness. If it does, do it. If it doesn’t, there’s not only no reason, but no excuse for it.
Comment by American Elephant — February 9, 2010 @ 11:56 pm - February 9, 2010
From Gainsville Sun editorial
Colin Powell, who earned four general’s stars and served both conservative and liberal presidents at the highest levels, provided valuable support last week for allowing openly gay Americans to serve in the U.S. military.
Powell agrees with President Obama’s order to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and enable Americans to serve regardless of their stated sexual orientation.
He endorsed a plan for phasing out the 17-year-old policy – as described by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – and urged Congress to do the same.
Powell’s support is significant in many ways. As an African-American who served in the position Mullen now holds, Powell took racial integration to the highest level of the military.
And he once opposed allowing gays who openly revealed their sexuality to serve in the military.
In other words, Powell’s views evolved along with those of the country, and the men and women in the military.
“Attitudes and circumstances have changed,” Powell said. “Society is always reflected in the military. It’s where we get our soldiers from.”
He’s right. A 2008 Washington Post-ABC News survey indicated that 75 percent of Americans supported allowing openly gay people to serve in the military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.
More than 13,500 service members have been discharged under the policy. Among them were Arabic and Farsi translators, who cannot so easily be replaced. They would, however, be able to serve in armies of many other countries.
Gays have long served honorably in the military, but too many of them have been forced to lie or cover up their sexuality – or face discharge. Too many Americans, including thousands serving in “mission critical” positions, have been discharged from the service for violating the current policy.
“No matter how I look at the issue I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Adm. Mullen said last week.
When some of the nation’s most respected military leaders say it’s time to let openly gay Americans serve, it’s time.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100210/OPINION01/2101000/1017?p=1&tc=pg
Comment by rusty — February 10, 2010 @ 8:00 am - February 10, 2010
Since there is no military as unique, powerful, and influential as the USA, let’s not use the foreign example. We have to address our own needs and capabilities. Whatever they do in foreign countries is irrelevant.
Comment by anon2273892 — February 10, 2010 @ 1:05 pm - February 10, 2010
anon
As a gay veteran I believe in this matter the experience of foreign armies is relevant. It shows that the presence of openly gay and lesbian persons do not destroy unit cohesion nor adversly effects morale. What they do and have in foreign countries that is irrelevant is the socialism the majority of the Democrats want to foist on the UInited States.
Comment by Roberto — February 10, 2010 @ 1:58 pm - February 10, 2010