Serving in silence
Gay armed services members struggle to conceal personal lives, hope for policy changes
A bill has been referred to the House Armed Services Committee that, if passed, would repeal the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy concerning homosexuality and replace it with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Tweet
Editor’s note: Names marked with (*) are pseudonyms created to protect certain sources who could be discharged from duty for revealing their true names.
Uniformed men and women gracefully flow across the ballroom’s dance floor. The male cadets stare into their girlfriends’ eyes, connecting with each other in a room full of people, while the female cadets rest their heads on the chests of their male counterparts.
It’s only a ROTC Military Ball, but it feels like millions of love stories preserved in letters from the World War era.
However, these relaxed social gatherings can be more like minefields for some cadets, who aren’t allowed to show others who they truly are.
“All the guys bring girlfriends and I have to bring a friend to come with me and pose as my girlfriend,” said Robert Ryan*, a gay ROTC cadet at MSU.
Video: Hush-Hush Policy ...
Ryan is one of many cadets across the country who have entered the military under the protection of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and now must conceal their sexual orientation or risk being discharged from service.
“I don’t think anyone else is forced to say something else when they’re at work,” Ryan said.
The movement
Since its inception in 1993, “don’t ask, don’t tell” has been a lightning rod for controversy. Passed during the Clinton administration, the military’s homosexual conduct policy forbids military officers from asking any recruit about their sexual orientation unless it is part of an investigation.
Prior to this, gay people simply were not allowed to serve, MSU law professor Frank Ravitch said.
“The original idea was to protect, so that individuals would be able to stay in the military,” Ravitch said. “There was an even more Draconion policy before that.”
But the legislation has caused about 12,500 men and women to be discharged from service. Representatives for the U.S. Department of Defense could not be reached for comment.
Now, 16 years later, the movement to repeal the policy is gathering momentum.
President Barack Obama guaranteed he would put an end to it during a speech Saturday in front of the country’s largest gay rights group.
A recent Gallup poll found that support to repeal the policy is growing
and has increased 12 percent among conservatives since Nov. 2004.
U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who is chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, has opposed “don’t ask, don’t tell” since it first was introduced.
“He will be holding a hearing sometime this fall on the policy,” said Tara Andringa, Levin’s spokeswoman. “That’s the first step in the process.”
A U.S. House of Representatives bill to abolish the policy — the Military Readiness Enhancement Act — currently sits in the House Armed Services Committee.
Although these could be signs of the end of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” era, several similar bills in the past have failed to repeal it.
The secret life
Depending on when you meet her, Katie Jones* could be one of two different people. In the cadet lounge of Demonstration Hall she’s just one of many other ROTC recruits enlisting to help pay for college and set themselves up for a job out of school.
But meet her any other time and Jones is a part of the gay community, occasionally heading to gay bars with friends and actively dating.
If those two lives ever were to intersect, Jones’ future would be in jeopardy. Jones could be forbidden from continuing her career, found guilty of nothing other than being herself.
“Just being a woman, I feel behind the eight ball already,” she said. “This extra secret doesn’t help much.”
The government invests a significant amount of money into educating and training each cadet, and the fact that the law requires them to be discharged because of their sexuality seems unjustified, Ryan said.
“It’s kind of sad that at any point, you can lose everything you’ve worked so hard for,” Ryan said. “They make exceptions for people that might have medical conditions that might not make them good (soldiers). It’s just sad realizing there’s nothing physically wrong with me. I’m very capable, I’m as good of a leader as any cadet to come out of the program, but that’s their sole qualifier.”
Change of culture
Accepting gay people into the military might not be just a matter of repealing legislation, Jones said. In order for gays to be completely included, she said, the military needs a real change of culture.
“It’s a very taboo subject,” she said. “Some of the guys, some of them (who) went to basic (training) or are in National Guard units joke, ‘Oh yeah, we had a faggot in our platoon,’ and make fun of him like he’s not a real person.”
If Congress were to reverse “don’t ask, don’t tell,” Jones said she doesn’t foresee quick change to the attitudes of some of her fellow cadets. In fact, she said she worries being openly gay in the military might alienate as much as it integrates.
“For the time being, repealing the policy would be a living hell,” she said.
But while some in the military might not completely welcome homosexuals, not all soldiers share that opinion, said Sterling Raehtz, a geography graduate student and ROTC cadet.
“It’s not really a big deal who’s sitting next to me, as long as they’re a good solider,” Raehtz said. “When bullets start flying, sexual orientation doesn’t matter to me.”
To Lieutenant Colonel James Rouse, chairman of the MSU Department of Military Science and a member of the Military Education Advisory/Consultative Committee, personal beliefs play no part in how he accepts and trains cadets.
“It doesn’t matter whether (the policy) is right or wrong or whether I agree or disagree — it’s a law passed by Congress,” Rouse said. “It’s the regulation and that’s what we have to abide by. … It’s not our call.”
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
End the Ban
(10/14/09 7:05am)Report
It is time to end the ban. Straight, gay, black, white, male, female, who cares. Men and women, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or any other factor should have 100% full equality in the armed forces. That includes sending women into combat as combat arms soldiers if they choose. Israel does that, and others allow homosexuals to serve openly and you know what, those countries are doing just fine. It’s time to get out of 1920 and into 2009.
Inspired2b
(10/14/09 8:15am)Report
Here are two straight servicemembers discussing their experience. Both Steve Vossler (http://bit.ly/TkdWy) and Genevieve Chase (http://bit.ly/Uyzjc) clearly explain that the military can and will be able to handle openly gay members; they did.
In addition, if you desire DADT to be repealed vote! http://www.thelineofdeparture.com/2009/10/07/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-hold-your-breath/?ESRC=mr.nl
MaximumBob
(10/14/09 8:34am)Report
End The Ban,
Israel DOES NOT include women in all of their combat arms. They tried that, and it was a dismal failure. They’ve since retracted and placed women in “combat support” positions. Please stop propagating that old lie.
As someone who’s seen the results of the forced integration of homosexuals in other militaries, I’d say the results are mixed, AT BEST. It’s time we start considering what’s best for our military, and not how it could be used for social experimentation.
Bleed Green
(10/14/09 11:06am)Report
MaximumBob, have you considered that homosexuals ALREADY serve in our military? In all branches? Repealing DADT would mean they can serve openly, without fear of repercussions. Whether openly gay servicemembers will be welcome with open arms by their fellow soldiers, sailors, marines or otherwise is a different story, but one that must also be addressed.
Alum04
(10/14/09 12:05pm)Report
StateNews, first off as a Marine I don’t appreciate the piss poor picture accompanying this article. Both uniforms are unservicable and neither are Army issue uniforms. If you are going to print a picture please assure at least it’s a correct one. Secondly, Marines are guided by the EEO, just like everything else there are people out there who regardless of whether this or that is appealed will still be hateful people. A perfect example would be Woman’s right to vote and the civil rights amendment in the 60s. Yet, there are still people that don’t respect these laws. The bottom line, the most important thing about being a member of the Armed Services is whether or not you have a dedication to something bigger than yourself and want to defend this great country. That is all.
Please remove this photograph as it is offensive to those that have given their lives in THAT Uniform.
Dude...
(10/14/09 1:13pm)Report
I can tell from your description you have clearly never been to a mill ball, now that’s quality reporting.
E
(10/14/09 2:26pm)Report
First off, I believe that DADT probably violates a civil right or two, but maybe it’s a good thing. It’s pretty obvious that repealing the DADT would alienate those who would chose to voice their homosexual orientation.
But I think we’re missing the more important issue. Why should it matter whether or not soldiers are allowed to express their sexual orientation. Is that how we are defining ourselves these days? By who we like to bang? With the exception of the occasional pervert or horny frat boy, I’d like to think that humans are defined by more than sex. Soldiers are trained to fight and defend our country. That is a bigger part of their identity than sexual orientation. If not, it should be. Our government needs to refocus the vision of the military if its biggest concern right now trying to decide whether or not soldiers are allowed to say they like girls or boys. Unapproved sexual relationships, regardless of the orientation, are a huge distraction. Although we presently have policies limiting the extent of that relationship between members of the military, their enforcement is far too light. By repealing the DADT, I believe it might send a mixed message about the military’s opinion on sexual relationships while on duty. The military is not a stage to campaign for social rights, that’s what street demonstrations are for. Let the military do it’s job and get rid of all these sexual orientation/relationship distractions.
MaximumBob
(10/14/09 2:27pm)Report
Bleed Green, I don’t have to “consider” it. I’m a sixteen-year veteran and have seen such things with my own eyes.
Wether they will be welcomed “with open arms” should be considered BEFORE The President takes such a bold and uninformed step. Personally, I already know the answer, but that probably won’t matter.
The question that still remains to be asked, and will probably remain unanswered, is “How will this make our military services better?”
MaximumBob
(10/14/09 2:29pm)Report
Alum04,
Bravo.
Of course, you can’t expect the editors of The State News to understand, let alone respect such things.
Mav
(10/14/09 3:14pm)Report
Wow, it looks the Marine has a major stick up his ass, whining his little butt off about a picture of some clothes.
MaximumBob
(10/14/09 3:34pm)Report
Mav,
Have you served?
I’m guessing not.
Those aren’t just “clothes” to those that have taken The Oath.
MAV
(10/14/09 3:40pm)Report
I sure as hell haven’t. I know some people who have, though. I’ll consult with them and ask if the “incorrect” picture in the State News poured copious amounts of sand into their vaginas.
Alum04
(10/14/09 4:47pm)Report
Mav,
While your choice of trolling is quite inappropriate. I respect your right to do so. You see, there are Marines, Sailors, Soliders, and Airmen that are all over the world defending that right and fighting for others to have that right. So in essence you are actually “making my point” for me. So I should say thank you.
Secondly, the Marine Corps is the US’s oldest service dating back to 1775. In fact in a few weeks on Nov 10th, Marines all over the world will celebrate “our birthday” by remembering our heritage. This is perfect place to make my point. The uniform is something of emmense pride for EVERY Marine, both past and present, and will be well into the future. Those uniforms that are being degraded by A) being worn in correctly and B)being used in support of a repeal of a Law that is currently in place is unprofessional and offensive. The SN is irresponsible for printing such a picture.
If my meandering hasn’t convinced you or anyone else about the PRIDE and HONOR it is to be a US Marine, go find a Marine and ask him to walk outside in his uniform in the condition this picture shows. See what he/she says to you.
common sense
(10/14/09 5:15pm)Report
“Aren’t you just coopting the vernacular of those who’ve served in order to sound tough?”
Actually I believe that is the vernacular of a certain Eric Cartman of South Park, CO.
From all sounds of it you’d think that both of you showed up with an axe to grind with rich, spoiled, liberal college kids and would have found something to be outraged by regardless of what the State News did.
Response to E
(10/14/09 5:15pm)Report
E
If you think repealing DADT is simply about sex you’ve missed the point.
The military no longer discriminates against race because that is irrelevant to serving. they don’t ban people based on religion, because that’s irrelevant to serving. They don’t ban people who play World of Warcraft, because that’s irrelevant to serving.
In the words of Barry Goldwater “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight”
Gays aren’t seeking to have any special recognition of their being gay, they just want to be able to be gay without having their careers wrecked and their patriotism trampled upon. They are serving in units honorably, so obviously homosexuality doesn’t inherently disqualify them. Only the attitudes of other people, (a large number not serving in the military, BTW).
Just as Harry Truman didn’t listen to a bunch of nonserving bigots who protested his integration of the military, Obama should ignore the draft dodging homophobes who seek to keep people who actually serve from being able to be themselves without fear of being removed.
E
(10/14/09 5:55pm)Report
I’m not saying that homosexuals can’t join the military. The DADT in no way prevents gays from serving. It simply prohibits homosexuals from revealing their sexual orientation while they’re under contract. Why? So it doesn’t become a distraction. What do we already have on our hands from this controversy? A distraction. I cannot foresee any positive consequences for a gay soldier if he were to throw his “coming out” party with his other soldier buddies. Again, the identity of a soldier has nothing to do with “straightness” or “gayness”. A soldier’s identity is his or her commitment to fighting for and defending the country. Do straight soldiers define themselves by their attraction to the opposite sex? No. Why should it be any different for a gay soldier?
to the negative attacks
(10/14/09 7:29pm)Report
I’m surprised at the narrow scope of many of the responses here. Is no one willing to consider that “controversy” promotes the change, growth, and development that has shaped our history? Many of these same arguments—the notion that women/blacks/latinos etc etc would be a “distraction” in the workplace, “inconvenient” in the ballot box, or “expensive” to integrate—have been utilized time and time again. The notion that one should not have their rights, dignity, and achievements stripped because their inclusion in a minority is not a new one. We have overcome tremendous divides in the past and there is no reason we should not be able to do the same now.
I applaud the author of this article for tackling the issue and shedding light on some of the potential consequences of these changes. Many commenters have noted the bigotry and discrimination that would ensue among peers were soldiers to “come out.” While this may be the case, it was no different during Jim Crowe, and is something we must overcome.
Operation Redwing
(10/14/09 8:52pm)Report
State News-
You could at least use an United States military uniform. The picture is really half assed considering the significance behind it.
You knuckle draggers are pitifulDavid Locher
(10/14/09 10:09pm)Report
Operation Redwing-
That was a U.S. uniform in the picture. Granted it was incomplete and was disgraced by having a civilian wearing it and a pin where the Marine Corps Emblem is suppose to be. Trust me, I wore this uniform for four years while in the Marine Corps.
State News-
I just want to say thanks for the great insult and dishonoring the Marine Corps uniform. Next time you want to publish a picture that is anything military related get it cleared so you do not offend the people who fought for your right of freedom of press.
Dave Locher
Corporal
United States Marine Corps
^what a fucking joke^
(10/15/09 1:05pm)Report
Uh, David??? Nobody fought for the right of Freedom of the Press. It was established in the Zenger case, non-violently, about 233 yrs ago…
I’m always split between wanting to laugh and puke when vets and servicemen talk about defending our “freedom”. or fighting for our “rights”. IT has been 65 yrs. since the American military has fought in the name of anything other than corporate interest and imperialism.
“I wore this uniform for for years” – nobody cares. So you made some poor life choices – get over yourself. Why should anybody respect anything that you or the rest of the sheep in the American armed forces do? Why should the state news worry about “offending” you?
Your comments, and the rest on this thread made by military (current or former) just illustrates how dogmatically brainwashed you all are. Fighting to defend our rights? Honestly?!
to the above person ^^
(10/15/09 1:27pm)Report
I highly doubt you even have the balls to say that to a Marine (or any other servicemen/women). Here’s hoping that when you are actually brave enough to confront a servicemember, you get your teeth knocked out and the crap kicked out of you.
This is coming from a civilian, not military btw.
MAV
(10/15/09 3:22pm)Report
I just love how all these dudes have some sort of inflated sense of purpose because they served, acting like they are somehow responsible for MY freedom.
I’ll say these things to any MARINE if they’re going to spout off about how they’ve provided me with all my luxuries and freedoms. And if they knock me out, I’ll sue their pathetic ass. Most of the soldiers I’ve met are losers who couldn’t do anything else, losers who shouldn’t have a gun and a “playground” on which they can probably harass and shoot innocent people. I’ll respect the marines who DESERVE my respect and simply serving? Yeah, not enough. Sorry military people, hate to offend, but those of you who have a zeppelin-sized ego about your service can take it and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
MAV
(10/15/09 3:26pm)Report
“IT has been 65 yrs. since the American military has fought in the name of anything other than corporate interest and imperialism.”
Truest statement I’ve read all day. It saddens me that so many Americans are just way too damn stupid to realize/understand that. OUR UNNECESSARY PRESENCE IN VIETNAM SAVED US FROM THE COMMUNIST INVASION! BLARGH!!!!
Alum04
(10/16/09 12:37pm)Report
Mav?
really? seriously? now I know you are trolling.
To those of you left wing, hippies who, use to play “non-competitive sports,” I say to you, do you have no respect for yourselves and those who have in fact given their lives for the United States of America. The US Armed Forces does so much that is uncounted and not apprecaited. Ever heard of Operation Hope? Hummanitarian Mission, I’ll even go to OIF I, Iraqi women had NO rights, and now they do!
@what a F*&king joke:
Every person that swears an oath to uphold the consitution of the US of America against all enemies forgein and domestic. No? Still confused? I understand you’re too busy, smoking weed, and picking flowers while listening to your leftist, communist propoganda. It’s ok. I’ll continue to sleep in the dirt, eat little to nothing, stay awake for hours on end, shower as a LUXURY, and see my family once every few years, so that you can spout off your mouth. Keep going, you are showing everyone how intelligent you are with every word.
Corporate interest and imperialism? REALLY? REALLY???
Ever heard of Genocide? Because good ole Sadam (your hero I’m sure) committed genocide in Iraq.
Did you forget 9/11? One question has there been a terror attack on the US since? NO, why? Because the US Marines and US Army has serached out and is still searching for ANYONE that would hurt our great country. If thinking that the US is the greatest country in the history of the world is wrong, then I’d rather be wrong, because you my friend, are a sick individual.
For those of you thatthink that US Service Members are dogmatic and have inflated ego’s: try going through 1/3 what they have, and then you can speak. Yet, you continually think you can talk about something you have no idea about.
Mil_Sparty
(10/16/09 12:43pm)Report
@^what a fucking joke^
You are a fucking joke, you are a worthless excuse for a human being, and worth even less as a US Citizen. Have ever given yourself to anything greater? bigger than yourself? A greater good? Ever believe in something other than yourself?
Your words show the decline of western civilization and are the reason, you’d rather suck your mom’s tit, then do anything with your life. You can quote anything you learn in class and pass it off as your own. That’s really ok. I beg you to tell a Marine that. You can scream like your a bad ass on here, but I’m guessing you are too much of a PUSSY, to actually do it.
That is all..