Homosexuality is incom patible with military service.
The presence in the military environment of persons who
e n g a g e in homosexual conduct or who, by their state­
ments, dem onstrate a propensity to engage in homo­
sexual conduct, seriously impairs the accom plishm ent
of the miliary mission. The presence of such members
adversely affects the ability of the military services to
m aintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster
mutual trust and confidence am ong service members;
to insure the integrity of the system of rank and com ­
m and; to facilita te assignment and worldw ide deploy­
m ent of service members who frequently must live and
work under close conditions affording minimal privacy;
to recruit and retain members of the military services; to
m aintain the public a cce p ta b ility of military service;
a n d to prevent breaches of security.
Enlisted Administrative Separations,
32 C.F.R., Part41, App. A, Sec. H
by Jay Brown
By January 1,1984, thirty-eight of the
United States had decriminalized private
consensual adult homosexual acts. One
state, Wisconsin, is the only one which has a
statewide statute banning discrimination on
the basis of sexual preference.
In December 1973, the Federal Civil
Service Commission issued a directive which
states, “You may not find a person unsuitable
for federal employment merely because that
person is a homosexual or has engaged in
homosexual acts, nor may such exclusion be
based on a conclusion that a homosexual
person m ight bring the public service into
public contem pt" (Civil Service Bulletin, Dec.
21,1973.)
The United States Defense Department
which employs 2-3 million individuals, speci­
fically prohibits lesbians and gays from serv­
ing in the armed services. (See sidebar.)
Homosexuality is incompatible with m ili­
tary service. No ifs, ands, or buts; the rule
is military law. If individuals are discovered to
be gay or lesbian they are discharged. Most
lesbians and gays in the military are given
honorable discharges, but an increasing
number are discharged under less than hon­
orable conditions even though they have
served with distinction and have been hon­
ored for meritorious conduct
And yet thousands of gays and lesbians
enlist in the several branches of the armed
forces each year.
Most gay people manage to hide their sex­
ual orientation deeply in the closet but a sub­
stantial number of military personnel are dis­
Just O ut, July 6
charged annually after being charged with
homosexuality. In 1980 and 1981, more than
1700 gays and lesbians were discharged
from the service. This figure does not reflect
the discharges of gays and lesbians who,
after being identified by the military as
homosexuals, are discharged under general
charges of “ unsuitability,” “ unfitness," or
“ m isconduct" as opposed to specific
charges of homosexuality.
In 1980, military strength totalled
2,031,658: less than eleven percent were
women. If the Kinsey estimate that at least ten
percent of the total male population is pre­
dominantly gay is applied to the male military
population, then more than 200,000 gay
men should have been serving in the military
in 1980.
The rule that homosexuality is incompati­
ble with military service seems to be incon­
trovertible: all attempts at recourse through
civil courts have been denied to victims of
military homophobia. No case involving the
military rule barring homosexuals has yet
reached the Supreme Court, nor is any likely
to be heard in the near future.
In May of this year, the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld the discharge of Army Ser­
geant Perry Watkins, a fifteen year veteran,
saying a lower court decision had no power
to force Watkins’ Army superiors to disobey
military regulations.
In 1975, Air Force Sergeant Leonard Mat-
lovich, a much-decorated Vietnam veteran,
mounted a test case of the military bag on
homosexuality. Matlovich informed his
supervising officer that he was homosexual
and wished to remain in the Air Force. Mat­
lovich contended that homosexuals should
be subject to the same rules and be given the
same rights as heterosexuals.
Subsequent to admitting to homosexual­
ity, Matlovich was recommended for a gen­
eral discharge, which is less desirable than an
honorable discharge. After six months of
hearings before military courts, Matlovich
was given an honorable discharge and for the
next six years he pursued hs case in civil
courts.
In 1981, Matlovich dropped efforts towards
reinstatement in the U.S. Air Force in return
for a $ 160,000 settlement Matlovich said the
settlement was a “great victory," but then
Secretary of the Air Force Hans Mark said the
Air Force agreed to the settlement because it
continues to regard homosexuality as funda­
mentally inconsistent with military service
and wanted to avoid returning Matlovich to
active duty.
Military homophobia received a minor set­
back earlier this year when seven-year vete­
ran Sergeant Diane Mathews was ordered
reinstted in an ROTC program at the Uni­
versity of Maine from which she had been
dismissed after she had identified herself as a
lesbian to her commanding officer. The U.S.
District Court decision said that Mathews'
dismissal, "as a result of her declaration of
homosexual conduct” had violated her First
Amendment rights to free expression. The
court decision also said that the military regu-
homosexuality without any evidence of
lation which allows the discharge of persons
with “ homosexual propensity” is unconstitu­
tional on the same First Amendment right
The case has yet to be heard in a higher
court, but the decision in the Watkins case
would seem to reverse the district court
decision.
So, with all the force of military homo­
phobia against them, why do lesbians and
gays choose to enter the armed services?
Most people, of course, do not know any
better; they are young, 17 to 20 years of age,
and usually know little except straight Ameri­
can attitudes.
Though restrictive of personal freedoms,
m ilitary service is a learning experience.
Many people recognize their sexual prefer­
ence only after they have entered the military,
which unfortunately, leads them to a life in the
closet if they wish to remain in the service.
The laissez-faire practice of abstention
from interference with individual freedom of
choice and action is integral to the American
tradition, at least ideally. However, military law
does not recognize civil rights in the same
way as does the civil courts system, as was
shown in the Watkins case. The fact that the
m ilitary is restrictive of personal freedom is
not accepted as common knowledge in this
country, although the Matlovich case may
have made more people aware of it
The Mathews case is another step in the
right direction, but it is still a long way to the
Supreme C ourt The military does not give
up easily.
7