Homosexuality and the U.S. Military

Shawn Snyder 2008


The United States has been very progressive over its course of history. It has moved from a society where having slaves was accepted, women were second class citizens and a person's ethnicity changed how he or she was treated into one in which slavery is outlawed, women have equal rights, and having laws preventing discrimination based on its citizen's inalienable rights. With all of these other progressions in place, some say it's time to look at whether allowing homosexuals in the military is the next step. (Ephron, 2007)(McKinley, 2008)(Shanker, 2007) Change is never easy, though, and sometimes isn't even the right thing to do. Convincing hundreds of millions of people to agree upon something is extremely daunting, so the argument must either be absolutely true, have an enormous pull on emotion, or a majority indifferent for it to work. There are 3 major areas of action and debate; 1) whether or not there is a choice in being homosexual, 2) the constitutionality of military discrimination against and criminalization of homosexuals, and finally 3) whether there is sufficient reason for discrimination.
When asking whether or not homosexuality is a choice, it may not seem like cutting edge research could be needed to answer this question and it may even seem like the type of question we should already know the answer to. To say homosexuality is a choice would mean that it is not a gene that is passed, an illness acquired, or biological mutation. It means it must be a conscious choice of lifestyle made apart from a biological inclination to heterosexuality. It could also mean that there is no biological urge to have a particular sexuality, so it is a choice for both homosexuals and heterosexuals to act as they do. To say homosexuality is not a choice means it is either passed along in a gene, an illness acquired, or a biological mutation. It means that person is biologically inclined to be a homosexual. As you can see, to answer this question, we need to look deeper and deeper into what it means. And to understand whether someone is biologically inclined to be homosexual or heterosexual we must look to recent research and determine if we can even truthfully answer this question yet.

The first experiment to look at, and possibly the most relevant, is a popular one when discussing the biology (if any) of homosexuality. This experiment was performed by David Featherstone and worked on sexual behavior in fruit flies (Featherstone, 2007). The experiment found a gene he called genderblind, or GB for short, that suppresses glutamatergic synapse strength of neurons. Featherstone found, "Without GB to suppress synapse strength, the flies no longer interpreted smells the same way," referring to pheromones. "...GB mutant males were no longer recognizing male pheromones as a repulsive stimulus." (Featherstone, 2007) In fact, the flies could no longer distinguish between male and female pheromones, and hence the name genderblind for the gene. Being unable to distinguish male and female pheromones caused bisexual behavior, treating male and female the same sexually. Only by genetically altering synapse strength as well as feeding the flies synapse-altering drugs was Featherstone able to bring about this behavior, so additional amplification in synapse strength may or may not be needed with GB mutant flies to display bisexual behavior. This idea is reinforced because when Featherstone removed the synapse-altering drugs, the GB mutant flies returned to heterosexual behavior within hours. Overall, this experiment shows potentially bisexual behavior can be caused by amplifying glutamatergic synapse strength as well as restricting the regulator gene, GB. How might that translate to humans? This particular experiment would suggest that bisexuality might be explained by the same process, but does not show or infer a reason for explicit homosexual behavior. There are other experiments pertaining to homosexual behavior, but arguably none as productive in finding an answer. "Other genes that alter sexual orientation have been described, but most just control whether the brain develops as genetically male or female. It's still unknown why a male brain chooses to do male things and a female brain does female things." (Featherstone, 2007)

Another experiment that's not directly related to homosexuality, but whose idea may shed some more light on finding an answer is one concerning sperm chemotaxis. Sperm chemotaxis is the process by which it is believed male sperm cells find female eggs (Spehr, Gisselmann, Poplawski, Riffell, Wetzel, Zimmer, et al., 2003). Human Sperm have unique olfactory receptors identified as hOR 17-4 and they found that certain chemicals are strong chemoattractants for sperm, but the actual chemical used by eggs is still not known, just that it might have a similar makeup to the chemoattractant found, bourgeonal. They also found that undecanal undermines effects of bourgenal being a chemoattractant. All of this strongly suggests that sperm "smell" their way to egg cells by way of a chemical the egg releases or possesses. Using the idea gained from the experiment, as well as regular occurrences of homosexual men being able to impregnate women (Van Gelder, 1987)(Bowe, 2006), it may be concluded that it is in the basic structure of the sperm to have this receptor and in healthy sperm be active, and so even homosexual men's sperm are attracted to female eggs. This has not been rigorously tested specifically, but is regularly observed in the "turkey baster" method or "natural" method of fertilization when two male and female (respective) homosexual couples wish to have a child. Because the homosexual male is still able to impregnate a homosexual female, this infers there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality regarding the biological structure of reproductive mechanisms. Specific tests may be needed to confirm this hypothesis in the future, and I believe this is the best area to focus to answer the overarching question of whether homosexuality is a choice.

If what I just explained is true, then all bisexual or homosexual behavior must originate from somewhere other than the reproductive organs, because it would seem the organs solely depend on whether the subject is male or female to determine what the specific cells are and how they work. The chemotaxis experiment as well as the fruit fly experiment suggest the answer either lies within our brain's complex neurostructure as a choice or mutation, or exclusively by whether the sperm had an X or Y as the second chromosome upon fertilization. So while much research still needs to be done to answer the question of choice with certainty, there is sufficient reason to believe hard-wired homosexuality is at least not a normal biological process.
While choice is certainly an important part of this argument, until a conclusion can be determined with confidence and agreement it is hard for the legal system to react. It then becomes a different issue of whether to give the benefit of doubt and act as if it's not a choice, or default to treating it as a chosen lifestyle. This is where policy and philosophies divide military ideology and laws from the civilian population it protects. While one of the purposes of our government is to protect our freedoms and rights, the purpose of the military is to defend the country from others threatening those rights, so in the very least the military has a different purpose and therefore different guidelines. The decision of whether to give benefit of doubt must then be answered separately by each. For the general population, the fourteenth amendment to the Bill of Rights of our Federal Constitution prevents any state or individual from depriving life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (Constitution, 2006) Right now, the only explicitly protected areas are: race, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, disability, age, and anticipated deployment with the reserves or National Guard (Civil Rights, 2006). If Congress added sexual orientation to this list, then it would be illegal to discriminate based on homosexuality. In most states right now, though, there are already additions to the federal law that include sexual orientation, among others. So while it may not be a constitutionally protected right, no other rights a homosexual may have can be infringed upon. It seems the federal government is holding out on passing any laws to include sexual orientation into the protected list until a concrete answer on choice is available. This is what the federal level is supposed to do on matters it is unsure about; leave it to the individual states to decide for themselves until a verdict arises, instead of micromanaging the states, which would be infringing on the state's freedom.

Asking whether to give benefit of doubt to homosexuals in the context of the military is much more complicated an issue, because there are different rules by which the military is governed than its civilian counterpart, and has a different purpose. The military's highest priority is the ability to win wars. It must do this, though, within the context that congress enables it. U.S. Constitution Article 1, section 8 gives Congress the sole power to raise, govern, empower, organize, discipline, and most relevant, "...the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" (Constitution, 2006). What this means is that the military is like another society apart from the civilian one, and the opportunity to follow the same constitution but be played out differently. While the military must still follow the spirit of the constitution, Congress has greater flexibility and can pick and choose which civilian laws apply to the military, if at all. Because of that same clause, the Supreme Court has historically deferred key cases that pertain to the military, as to not trample on Congress' power and not entangle the two different rulebooks. (Burrelli, 2006)

There are two guidelines pertaining to homosexuals in the military that are the objects of debate. The first is from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, UCMJ for short, which is the set of laws Congress made for the military to follow. It's found in U.S. Code Title 10, chapter 47, and the guideline in question is subchapter 10, section 925 and is known as the Sodomy Article. It bans sodomy outright, which is defined as unnatural carnal copulation, and is punishable as a court-martial may direct. Homosexuality falls under sodomy for both males and females, but so does bestiality, pedophilia, and oral/anal sex between heterosexual couples. This is the most direct and controversial law because it criminalizes such actions and similar laws for civilian states were repealed due to a ruling by the Supreme Court stating sodomy laws were unconstitutional. (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003) The Supreme Court has deferred cases regarding this law from the UCMJ, again as to not step on Congress' power, so it does appear this is within Congress' power to make such laws. This also makes sense if compared to another, more easily understood area that is similar. US civilians are not allowed to kill another person, but in certain circumstances a member of the military is, as in war. It is within Congress' power to override not only Congress' own law pertaining to killing other human beings, but also the restriction that one person cannot infringe on another's protected rights, here it is life. Those lines in the Constitution really give Congress a lot of power and responsibility to guide not only the military but also to guide themselves in empowering/disciplining the military. The smart person arguing for allowing homosexuality in the military sees this and accepts it but then tries to point out the two-edged sword of the sodomy article and the seemingly unequal enforcement of it. What they mean is that while homosexuality is banned, so is oral/anal sex between heterosexual couples, but there are few and far between cases brought up involving the latter case. Anyone's best guess at least concludes that the number of cases tried is far less than the actual number of incidences. The person arguing against homosexuality in the military must concede this unequal enforcement and to be fair would make efforts to equally enforce the sodomy article. The point of argument then becomes why this article is needed at all, which I'll cover later.

The other guideline pertaining to homosexuals in the military is known as the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (U.S.C.654, 2006). It was put forth in 1993 and limits the government's stance on homosexuality to banning the act and not the person from the military, so a more neutral stance is taken until the issue is decided. Under the policy, homosexuals and bisexuals may serve in the military on the condition that they completely refrain from homosexual acts as well as inferring they have or will at any time during their potential service. It also prevents other military members from asking about a person's preference so as to not break the integrity of any individual by requiring them to lie. Congress outlines a few of their findings right in the policy before going into the details, and I'd like to highlight a few of their main points.
"There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces."

"The military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society."

" The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces."

"The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

The first two lines are self explanatory, but reiterate the fact that it's not a protected right in the constitution and so Congress may use that in conjunction with their power to govern the military to limit who is eligible for service, and sometimes it may be in a discriminatory manner. No one expects the military to accept a blind person into service. This coincides with the military's purpose of being effective and efficient. A blind person may cause danger to others and himself if wandering aimlessly on the battlefield. There are reasons for Congress's high standards of acceptance and even higher standards of retainability, most of which are ground in effectiveness, efficiency, or the discipline of the military as a whole. The third line highlights what it means to be on active duty in the military, which is to be on the job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week until the contract is over. So those who have contentions about privacy concerning the policy are settled by the notion that there is no private life in the military because a person is always on the job and so must always reflect a professional nature. This idea reflects the very invasive nature of military service and can be seen in many aspects of a member's day. On the lower ranking side, the best example would be living in an open squad bay with many other military members (of the same sex), and being accountable for its cleanliness at all times, also any senior member may enter and inspect at any time. These invasive features are necessary for military functionality and this was understood when our forefathers wrote the Constitution and gave Congress the power to make such rules. The last line is where most of today's controversy if focused and leads into the question of whether the policy is needed at all.

Though Congress states that homosexuality is an unacceptable risk, it does little to state why besides stating it is "necessary in the unique circumstances of military service." (U.S.C.654, 2006) There is a lot of speculation as to what is meant by that, but here are some possible interpretations:

1) Being homosexual is unprofessional, immoral, and undermines the integrity of the unit.

2) Having homosexuals as part of a unit creates a possibly dangerous distraction during fighting and to eliminate the danger, remove the distraction. (This is akin to the reason why females are not allowed to have exclusive combat roles)

3) There are other factors in which allowing homosexuals to serve would create lower military readiness, effectiveness, or efficiency.

Each phrase can be debated, but with the federal government currently claiming neutrality on the issue, they would probably not claim the first. I'll comment more on this later. Instead, a combination of 2 and 3 would have to be argued in the policy's defense. To group homosexuals into the distraction category is safe, as long as the original theory of dangerous distraction holds. But even if the person advocating for allowing homosexuals accepts this idea, he would then ask why it is that they are banned altogether and females are not. We then move to the last area of argument, which is if there are other factors that specifically prevent homosexuals from entering service "openly."

Some, Christians or Muslims for example, may cite that homosexuality is unethical and against their religion and that is why it would create problems for unit cohesion. This argument depends on the clash of lifestyles to support the ban and must be abandoned when other examples are brought up because it becomes a pick and choose morality, which lowers overall efficiency of the unit. Take, for example, the smoker and nonsmoker. In short the military doesn't care about individual feelings concerning smoking as long as it's legal. So the same argument, but with homosexuality, fails.

The biggest roadblock, at least currently, in allowing homosexuals to serve might be the logistical nightmare. Women and men are not roomed together under current privacy practices (Burrelli, 2006). If homosexuals were allowed to serve openly, then every military member would need to be afforded a separate room and shower to maintain privacy. Consider how to room a homosexual male. For instance if a homosexual male and heterosexual male were put in the same room, this would violate our concept of privacy because the homosexual male could conceivably be attracted to the heterosexual male and make the second uncomfortable. A homo/heterosexual male and a homo/heterosexual female living together would also violate privacy, because the heterosexual female could be attracted to the male, or the heterosexual male attracted to the homosexual female. Either one of the male or female homosexuals could also just claim to be homosexual and not actually be so to get roomed with a member of the opposite sex. The only available solution while preserving privacy would be to room everyone separately. Another option would be to loosen our privacy practices so this would not be a problem. The cost to afford individual housing to every member in the military would be staggering, considering how large our military is. It has also been argued that Congress is losing more money with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in place, versus an all out ban due to key positions being lost, but there is no significant difference (Personnel and Readiness, 1998). Based on my speculation, individual housing might also lower unit cohesion because a need for independence might arise, rather than learning to live with someone.

There are other nations that have integrated homosexuals completely into their military and this is also brought up to try and counter the distraction and unit cohesion argument. (Crompton, 1994) While those examples should be noted, the supporter for the homosexual ban will bring up that we are in the unique position of having the arguably most powerful military in history. This means there is something to be said for our practices and policies, which he will say is a reason to not follow other nations as we are the example to follow. Both have valid arguments, and taking all knowledge into consideration, I would say that since females have been allowed certain roles in the military, homosexuals should be allowed the same limited roles. If that were to happen, a change in privacy policy would have to happen, otherwise face the cost of individual housing. It is my conjecture, though that a change in privacy policy would create a smaller, but still non-negligible cost in manpower. Granting the great professionalism our military is due, I still cannot expect every single person to react in a nonsexual way when allowed living quarters with the opposite sex or those with whom they are attracted to. This loosening of privacy policy would lower the unit cohesion if more inter-unit relationships came about because of it and creates enormous potential for fraternization. Therefore I cannot endorse the lowering of privacy policy, either. If I cannot support either individual housing or lowering of privacy standards, then I must conclude that the US military is not ready for integration with homosexuals even on a limited scale, with or without the matter of choice being resolved.

In the future of our military, if we were able to overcome the barriers discussed, we might be able to allow homosexuals to serve in limited roles without sacrificing efficiency or effectiveness. The problem of distractions still arises no matter if homosexuality is found to be a choice or not. If it is found to not be a choice, it would only help in finding support to find solutions to integration. If it is found that homosexuality is a choice, then I would expect that the current laws stay intact with less protesting. Until there is a clear answer on that front, though, a stagnancy and neutrality is what I expect and what is best for the military.


Citations
Bowe, J. (2006, November 19). Gay Donor or Gay Dad? The New York Times, 66.
Burrelli, D., Dale, C. (2006, March) Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues. Congressional Research Service: Library of Congress.
Civil Rights, United States Code, Title 42 Chapter 21 (2006).
Crompton, L. (1994). 'An army of lovers': The sacred band of thebes. History Today, 44, 23-29.
Ephron, D. (2007). General comment. Newsweek, 149(13), 34.
Featherstone, D. (December 24, 2007). Behavior; in fruit flies, homosexuality is biological but not hard- wired. Health & Medicine Week, (December 24, 2007), pg. 2920.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
McKinley, J. (2008, 02/01/2008). Berkeley finds a new way to make war politics local. New York Times, pp. p16.
Shanker, T., & Healy, P. (2007, November 30). A new push to roll back ' don't ask , don't tell'. The New York Times, pp. 14.
Spehr, M., Gisselmann, G., Poplawski, A., Riffell, J. A., Wetzel, C. H., Zimmer, R. K., et al. (2003). Identification of a testicular odorant receptor mediating human sperm chemotaxis. Science, 299(5615; 5615), 2054.
United States Code, Title 10 section 654 (2006).
United States Code Title 10 Chapter 47 - Uniform Code of Military Justice, (2006).
United States Constitution, (2006)
United States. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness). (1998). Review of the effectiveness of the application and enforcement of the department's policy on homosexual conduct in the military. Washington, D.C.?: Dept. of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/rpt040798.html; http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS514
Van Gelder, L. (July/August 1987) Gay Gothic [two homosexual couples jointly raise a child]. Ms. p. 146-7+