Gay Soldiers

Sarah Lyall has an article in today's New York Times called Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Occur:

Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue.

Yep. In fact,

“There was a lot of apprehension among some senior personnel that there would be an increase in things like bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation, and some of them were almost predicting that the world was going to come to an end,” the Defense Ministry official said.

Similar concerns were raised when, bowing to national antidiscrimination laws, the military began allowing gay personnel who had registered for civil partnerships to live in military housing with their same-sex partners. “But all the problems the services thought were going to come to pass really haven’t materialized,” the official said.

And that's because in general people are a lot more rational and civilized than organizations - particularly military organizations who (like churches) make a big deal of conformity and preach intolerance for 'the other' - think. People really can get on with the important stuff when they have to.

Once the news is out there, the gay Royal Air Force squadron leader said, the issue gets subsumed by the job at hand and by the relentless immediacy of war.

And there's also the fact that for most people of military age, the whole idea is so last century:

“The boss said, ‘I think you will be surprised that in this day and age it will be a complete anticlimax, because as far as I’m concerned, homosexuals in the military are yesterday’s news.’ ”

Exactly.

Another point. As she says,

At least 24 countries — many of them allies of the United States, and some of them members of the coalition forces fighting alongside Americans — now allow gay soldiers to serve openly in their armed forces.

I can't help but wonder if some folks - like Pace - get all wobbly at the thought that some of those soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan are gay. Gosh, married gays living in on-post housing even! I wonder if they'd refuse to be in the same briefing with them - the same battle?

And touching on that topic, she says:

Nonetheless, the issue is extremely delicate now. The military does not want to be seen bragging about the success of its policy when the issue can still cause so much anguished debate in the United States. This is particularly true in light of tensions between the allies after a British coroner ruled in March that a British soldier who died four years ago was unlawfully killed by an American pilot.

For this article, the Defense Ministry refused to give permission for any member of the forces to be interviewed, either on or off the record. Those who spoke did so before the ministry made its position clear.

“We’re not looking to have quotes taken out of context in a way to imply that we’re trying to influence the debate in the United States,” the British official said. “There are some sensitivities over the timing of this. We have had communications from our counterparts in the United States, and they have asked us questions about how we’ve handled it and how it’s gone on the ground. There does seem to be some debate going on over how long the current policy will be sustainable.”

But in my opinion, that's just what we need. Not for the Brits to start bragging, per se - but for someone to stand up and point out at the top of their lungs that it doesn't make an army fall apart to have gays in it.

There was a gay couple in my unit in Germany way back in late 70s. They weren't supposed to be there, of course, but everybody knew they were. Heck, they rented an off-base apartment together. Someone went to the commander, complaining that they were a security risk. The commander, who was looking at a unit running about 48% TO&E strength in linguists, said, "They can't be blackmailed over something they aren't hiding," and that was that. No official notice taken or given - an early DADT, I suppose - and they finished up their hitch and got out. They might have reenlisted if they'd been able to be a real couple in the eyes of the army, who knows? They were a pretty anti-Soviet pair, after all. But they weren't, and so they didn't.

But they were an asset to the unit, and the country.

When are we going to figure out what the Europeans have?

The British military actively recruits gay men and lesbians and punishes any instance of intolerance or bullying. The Royal Navy advertises for recruits in gay magazines and has allowed gay sailors to hold civil partnership ceremonies on board ships and, last summer, to march in full naval uniform at a gay pride rally in London. (British Army and Royal Air Force personnel could march but had to wear civilian clothes.)

Meanwhile, we lower standards right and left: we don't care if you don't have a GED, do have a criminal record, or are mentally ill, as long as you're straight (or willing to lie about it).

Where is the sense? Never mind where is the equity - where is the sense?