Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, April 19, 1993 TAG: 9304190250
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MYER S. REED
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The former's arguments are based on perceived biblical condemnations of homosexuality. They also assert that acceptance of lesbians and gays into the military, and the extension of basic civil-rights protections to them, would undermine morality and, in some unspecified way, "weaken the family."
Leaving aside the issue of whether theological stances should set our civil-rights policies, there are other grounds for objecting to these arguments.
The Bible condemns many things, from the lack of male circumcision to the eating of certain foods, and condemns most of these more often and with more wrath than it does homosexuality.
Jesus, indeed, did not once speak out on this subject, but repeatedly condemned behaviors widely accepted and endorsed by most Christians today, including divorce. Yet one hears few public condemnations of divorcees, and never a mention of denying them civil rights, while religious conservatives heap considerable abuse on gays.
Why this curious imbalance? The answer would seem to be that, though the biblical case against homosexuality is much weaker than it is against divorce, lesbians and gays are an easier target.
It takes no more guts today in most churches to stand up and condemn homosexuality than it did for Jerry Falwell and other fundamentalists in the past to oppose racial integration, interracial marriages and women's equality. And, like the arguments against gays, these causes were opposed on supposedly biblical authority.
Today, conservative churches remain the most racially segregated and most appallingly sexist institutions in America. Therefore, it would not appear wise for us to look to them for moral guidance on any civil rights issue.
Furthermore, I know of no gays who are impressed with the disclaimers of fundamentalists that they hate the sin but love the sinner. To paraphrase Arthur Miller, a love like that would freeze beer!
Current and retired military opponents of lifting the ban on gays make different arguments.
One is that allowing lesbians and gays into the armed services would reduce combat effectiveness of our forces. Indeed, a recent commentary printed by this paper featured an eagle fettered by a ball and chain, supposedly portraying how lifting the ban would affect the military. Yet, of course, gays always have been in the armed services and the Department of Defense's own suppressed studies have shown them to be equal, if not superior, to others in their performance. Furthermore, as a recent study reported in Newsweek has shown, it is during times of war - when the greatest need exists for combat effectiveness - that the military has been least likely to expel gays.
A related charge is that military morale will drop if "standards are lowered." Despite frequent disclaimers that there are no parallels between the ban on gays and the earlier ban on African-Americans, this was the principal argument used against racial integration of the services.
It was argued then that no white would accept orders from a black officer, and whites would be so offended by having to share space with these "inferiors" that morale would plummet. Beneath this argument now being turned on gays and lesbians lie two telling assumptions.
First, that the self-esteem of service personnel rests not on any sense of competence and character, but rather on their claims to superiority over others. This is not a flattering portrait.
The other presumption is that gays and lesbians are lesser human beings, as opposed to simply being different. Several months ago this paper contributed to that belief by running a political cartoon featuring a sympathetically portrayed VMI cadet being confronted by President Clinton. Flanking the president was a Brunhilda-like character representing "feminists" and a limp-wristed monkey or imp labeled "gays." Had you caricatured any other minority group in such a dehumanized fashion, I doubt that the public condemnation of you would have subsided yet.
Still another argument against lifting the ban on gays is that sexual license will prevail and "blanket parties will inevitably ensue."
Again the assumptions are telling. Are we to imagine that heterosexual women and men who are "combat ready" are going to be overpowered by their gay colleagues? If so, what of the limp-wristed stereotypes and what of the preparedness of our troops?
Or are we to imagine that large numbers of men and women in the services will be willingly seduced? Not even Kinsey found that degree of bisexuality in the country. If gay Tailhook scandals do happen, those involved can be reprimanded by the same rules that should be enforced against all.
This hysteria is nonsense. What will be the case is that, like women now and blacks before, lesbians and gays will have to wait a long time even after the ban is lifted before it is safe to be openly gay.
By "openly gay" I don't mean overt sexual behavior. Being gay, like being heterosexual, is not just a matter of what people do in their bedrooms. It involves, first and foremost, whom you love and adopt as a life partner. Gays should have the right to acknowledge differentness without fear of attack or discrimination.
As for the fear of AIDS, the Defense Department has an HIV testing policy that bars new recruits who test positive. And it is military policy not to use person-to-person transfusions on the battlefield, but to rely on stored blood supplies. Finally, it is the grossest ignorance to maintain in 1993 that AIDS is an exclusively gay disease. Such "ignorance" is simply hatred masquerading in more publicly acceptable attire.
In the beginning of our nation, inclusive ideals were expressed. But those who endorsed those ideals found it difficult in practice to give up their privilege. Only white, propertied males were given the vote and full respect as citizens.
It has been a long and bloody struggle to live up to our democratic standards. Many today still portray the aspirations for equality expressed by minorities as the rantings of "special interests." Their requests for being referred to in a respectful way is trivialized as annoying demands for "political correctness."
Yet we all will benefit from relinquishing claims to entitlement and from accepting a simple equality among the diverse rank-and-file of our fellow citizens. It is the unwillingness to do this that has kept the American eagle from flying as high as it can.
Myer S. Reed is a professor of sociology at Radford University.
by CNB