Americans have come a long way on gays in the military

When Americans were asked in 1993 about whether U.S. troops should be able to serve, even if they’re gay, a majority (55%) were opposed to the idea. About eight years later, in 2001, public opinion had already shifted a great deal — 62% of Americans supported gays serving openly in the Armed Forces, while 35% did not.

And now, in 2008, public opinion on the issue is practically one-sided.

Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.

Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces. Shortly after he took office in 1993, Clinton faced strong resistance to his campaign pledge to lift the military’s ban on allowing gay people to enlist. At that time, 67 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives opposed the idea. A majority of independents, 56 percent, and 45 percent of Democrats also opposed changing the policy.

Today, Americans have become more supportive of allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the armed forces. Support from Republicans has doubled over the past 15 years, from 32 to 64 percent. More than eight in 10 Democrats and more than three-quarters of independents now support the idea, as did nearly two-thirds of self-described conservatives.

That’s really quite extraordinary. Get this: even 57% of evangelical Protestants support gays serving openly in the military.

On the one hand, it’s a very encouraging development. It’s hard to know what prompted the reversal, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it had something to do with the need for well-trained, physically-fit, patriotic Americans volunteering for duty during two wars, regardless of those Americans’ sexual orientation. It can be tough to get 75% of Americans to agree on anything, but they finally agree on this.

And on the other hand, we have the Republican Party establishment.

The poll found that nearly two-thirds of Republicans support allowing gays to serve openly in the military. But on this, rank-and-file Republicans are way ahead of their leadership. The Bush White House, for example, continues to insist that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” remains in place. And then, more importantly, there’s John McCain.

When the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network asked McCain to talk about his position on the issue, McCain responded by calling gay soldiers an “intolerable risk.”

In an April 16 letter to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), McCain says the law, passed in 1993, “unambiguously maintains that open homosexuality within the military services presents an intolerable risk to morale, cohesion and discipline.” Senator McCain goes on to incorrectly assert that the U.S. Supreme Court “has ruled that the military may constitutionally discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.” […]

“Most importantly, the national security of the United States, not to mention the lives of our men and women in uniform, are put at grave risk by policies detrimental to the good order and discipline which so distinguish America’s Armed Services.”

First, McCain cites a Supreme Court ruling that doesn’t exist. Strike one.

Second, McCain calls gays an “intolerable risk” to military morale, cohesion, and discipline. Really? According to a Zogby poll of active personnel conducted, 73% of military members say they are comfortable around lesbians and gays. For that matter, more than one in five U.S. troops already knows a gay person in their unit, including combat units. So where’s the “intolerable risk”? Strike two.

Third, McCain emphasizes “national security” as a rationalization for discrimination. In what way, exactly, does it improve our national security for, say, Bleu Copas, a decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist who joined the Army after the 9/11 attacks, to be thrown out of the military for being gay, despite his role in helping translate intercepted messages from possible terrorists? Are we more or less safe with Copas as a civilian? Strike three.

There isn’t even a political upside — Americans overwhelmingly agree with Barack Obama on this, and have concluded that gays should be able to serve openly.

I’d remind McCain that the first U.S. Marine seriously wounded in Iraq was Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who lost his leg when he stepped on a land mine. Because Alva is gay, McCain apparently thinks Sgt. Alva had no business joining the U.S. military. That somehow, his sacrifice was in vain because he shouldn’t have been allowed to wear a uniform in the first place.

Americans are, to our enormous credit, leaving McCain and his antiquated, discriminatory worldview behind. We’re a stronger country for it.

Second, McCain calls gays an “intolerable risk” to military morale, cohesion, and discipline.

This is almost precisely what opponents of the desegregation of the military said in the late 1940s, too.

  • I have often wondered why Republicans love to be gay bashers, but do not seem to have a problem with a gay person fighting for them.Also they are happy to let black people fight for them in the armed services, but when a black person is running for president, he is villified, he has been called a fascist, a socialist, un-american, a communist, a muslim, a non christian and whatever else they can throw at him, on yesterdays ‘Race for the White House” they said his wife was fair game because she spoke on the campaign trail, why is not Cindy McCain fair game for stealing drugs fron a childrens charity.

  • This is an absolute joke – ask any Soldier or Marine in a line combat unit what they think and they’ll tell you straight up that they’re against this. What did you do take a pole of the Air Force and Navy? Name another effective Military (Canada, Australia, the UK) – that allows gays to serve openly. The UK couldn’t even invade the Falklands today if it had to.

  • Well JMH, we’d like to take a “pole”, but we can’t seem to get your mother off of it.

  • It’s hard to know what prompted the reversal, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it had something to do with the need for well-trained, physically-fit, patriotic Americans volunteering for duty during two wars, regardless of those Americans’ sexual orientation.

    That’s no doubt part of it. The rest of it is likely generational shifts in attitudes toward all things having to do with sexual orientation.

    Although it seems interminably slow to those of us frustrated by continuing discrimination against gays and lesbians, the fact is that changes in societal attitudes are moving much faster in this arena than they ever did for, say, women or racial minorities. The difference in views between younger and older people–including evangelicals in both age groups–is just astounding. In 20 years, all of these battles will have been settled for good on the side of the angels. Anti-gay bigots know this, which is why they’re working so hard to, for example, get state anti-equal marriage legislation enacted that requires supermajorities to overturn. This is their last chance and they know it.

  • Would it be too cynical to suggest that some would abuse them over there so they don’t have to abuse them over here?

  • In answer to your question JMH, Germany and Israel allow gay soldiers to serve openly.

    Want to question Israel’s military ability?

  • Fourth, McCain is regurgitating, almost word-for-word, the arguments used to keep African-Americans out of the military or in segregated units. SLDN needs to pull some quotes and push this hard.

  • This is an absolute joke – ask any Soldier or Marine in a line combat unit what they think and they’ll tell you straight up that they’re against this. What did you do take a pole of the Air Force and Navy?

    That’s funny, I know 2 army rangers (each of have had 3 tours in Iraq) and a marine (4 tours) who ALL say they don’t care AND that they already know plenty of gay people serving in the military. They said they don’t know anyone that cares about it as an issue unless they’re OUTSIDE of the military.

    Not to mention that it’s pretty fucked up to villify people in the Air Force or Navy.

    Clearly you’re a Major Asshole– and I don’t mean the kind in a uniform.

  • Be careful with that Zogby poll—

    1) it does not publish how many combat arms service members are comfortable around gays and lesbians-it doesn’t correlate that portion of the sample to responses…this is important because Soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines who are in units charged with directly engaging and killing the enemy are comprised of unique volunteers who may not support and understand a gay or lesbian lifestyle. If these people (mostly men) aren’t comfortable with openly serving gays and lesbians, an’open’ policy could degrade morale, order and discipline.

    2) one third of the respondents of the poll are or were (veterans comprise a portion of the poll) commissioned officers. Less than 10% of the uniformed services are commissioned officers–the survey sample should demographically match the population under study. It can be argued that in general, officers have a wider range of educational, and sometimes social, exeriences than enlisted service members. Their opinions are not necessarily the same as the enlisted portion of our all volunteer force, and for a liberalized policy to work, service members must want to support it.

    3) the zogby poll shows the youngest members of the sample to be the least tolerant of openly gay men and open lesbians. This is significant, since 90% of the active duty military is under 25 years old. Once again, if service members don’t support a policy it will degrade morale and good order and discipline.

  • The simple fact is that gay people aren’t ‘scary’ any more to most Americans outside of ‘Christian ghettoes.’ And I still insist that television has a lot to do with this — along with things like GSAs in schools. If you see Ellen, or Judge Young, or watch Neil Patrick Harris in HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER or Portia DeRossi in reruns of ALLY McBEAL, ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT, or NIP/TUCK, you find it hard to see them as the ‘next enemy.’ (I wish Tim Daly’s EYES had been successful, because the second lead, Chris Didion — played by Rick Worthy — was both black and gay — and was scary in a good sense, don’t tangle with him.)

  • The much herald Zogby Report utilized by the pro-homosexual activist fighting to change the don’t ask – don’t tell law indicates 26% of the military men & women interviewed supported homosexuals serving openly. That is 138 out of 451 men and 80 females who revealed their gender for this report. Of those who supported homosexuals serving openly 24% came from the male side or 33 of the 451 voiced support. For sure, the 7% of the total number of males interviewed who support homosexuals serving openly does not reflect the polling of civilians who are clueless to life in the military and undoubtly would have no problem with their sons working, living, sleeping, showering with and being forced under mandate to accept the lifestyle of homosexuals.

    Yet again, while these men are engaging the enemy, America is shopping in the Malls.

  • “…and being forced under mandate to accept the lifestyle of homosexuals.” — wait

    Sounds like someone is a little insecure about their own orientation. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, except when accompanied by ignorance and bigotry.

  • Clinton blundered badly when he misjudged the politics of allowing gays to serve openly in the military back in 1993. He really thought the Commander-in-Chief could give the Pentagon its marching orders, not realizing that the Pentagon only takes orders from neo-con Republicans.

    I don’t know why any self-respecting gay person would want to serve in the military, permeated as it is by intolerant, homophobic, evangelical fanatics who constitute a far bigger “intolerable risk” to our democracy than so gays serving in the military to safety, morale and unit cohesion. Of course there are also the Log Cabin (Syrup) Rethugs, and I don’t understand them either.

    Be that as it may, I suppose it does constitute some progress over the past fifteen years that the number of bigots seems to have shrunk. Or is it mostly that the calculus is to put more gays in harm’s way in the fond and fervent hope they’ll get killed?

  • The kind of nonsense that Walt, #13, spews is really quite infuriating. An openly gay guy serving in the military is in much more physical danger from his ‘straight’ comrades than the other way around. When some heterosexual males are so irrationally threatened by being near a gay person, and I realize they are, it says much more about the insecurity of the heterosexual than it does about the ‘threat’ from the gay.

  • The McCain Solutions:
    Sell more cigarettes to Iran;
    Allow more gays into the military to be killed (probably by the Christian bigots who fear the intolerable risk posed by gays in their ranks);
    Have his surrogates forward obscene and ridiculous positions for effect, then deny them;
    Reveal Barack’s travel plans to dangerous locales in the hopes someone else will kill him, so McCain won’t have to hire his own assassin;
    Deny, Deny, Deny

    I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
    peace,
    st john

  • here is one theory in which (for once?) McCain is right.

    If 73 percent of military asked in the poll are pro-gays-in-the-military, JUST HOW ‘ANTI’ are those in the anti-gays-in-the-military camp? They’re in the minority on this issue, but not statistically insignifcant either. Does their stance on this issue translate into full-blown homophobia & gay-bashing? Would THEIR fear & loathing jeopardize the cohesion of the unit?

    Don’t get me wrong, I’ve no problem with homosexuality in any way shape or form. I’m just saying that homophobia ain’t entirely gone either. As far as I’m concerned, the percent of anti-gay in the military (which seems to correlate to Bush’s popularity numbers, a coincidence I’m sure) need to grow up for their own sake & the nation. But being neither gay nor in the military, my high horsedness on the matter means little. Those homophobes in the military can still do a lot of damage, and they’re not all enlisted men, which means there’s unwritten & acceptance & protection for homophobes throughout the military.

    I doubt McCain was that well thought-out with his answer, but much like certain neighborhoods or clubs or organizations, there are still pockets of people in the military who, in secret, will make a gay soldier’s life miserable, for kicks. And if DADT is repealed, this homophobia will be simply more “coded.” No, Sarge we didn’t beat that faggot JUST for being a faggot, he was trying to play grab-ass in the shower! Will a seargant believe that? How about any office up the chain of command in that unit? At what point, will investigations “go away” thanks to sympathetic co-homophobes in the higher ranks of the military, effectively keeping some otherwise worthwhile recruits from joining? Just because the homophoba’s not officially endorsed, doesn’t mean it won’t be tolerated.

  • Which part of only 7% of the military males interviewed for the Zoby Report supported homosexuals serving openly doesn’t he understand?

    There is no support for any statement that 73% of the military supports open homosexuals. 73% responded favorably to the question, “Personally, how comfortable are you in the presence of gays and lesbians?” 29% responded “very comfortable” & 44% responded “somewhat comfortable”. Somewhat is defined as; to a degree.

  • Walt
    Maybe they should ask female military personnel, “Personally, how comfortable are you in the presence of rapey heterosexual members of your unit or civilian contractors?”

    There are many more cases, both reported and I’m quite sure unreported, of sexual assault by straight males than by homosexual males.

    Just good Christian boys havin’ a little fun, right?

  • Just wondering, exactly how would a gay solider pose a threat to a straight soldier?

    And how is this situation different from the one where male and female soldiers are allowed to serve in the same unit?

    I’m sure that when they lift the ban, there’ll be some affect on troop morale (just as desegregation had back in 1948, and when women were allowed greater access to positions starting in the 1970s), but once a unit gets deployed overseas, where ones ability is judged on merit and not sexual orientation, this affect will stop being an issue.

    You’ll still have lingering feelings among the more right-tilting members of the service (like the mouth-breathers I served with back in the pre-DADT Army, who bitched about having to be alongside “niggers’ and “spicks”) for years, but those will be in a ever-shrinking minority as time goes by.

  • JMH @3:

    Uh, well, this year in Toronto, members of the Canadian Forces marched in uniform in the Toronto Gay Pride parade to promote proud service by gays and lesbians and the openess of the CF to anyone with the interest and the qualifications. The military PR people who spoke on the newscasts about this event (first time march in uniform, as opposed to participation of individuals in civvies) emphasized the CF’s interest in recruiting interested individuals from the gay and lesbian community.

    Up north here, this is basically a non-issue. As it should be.

  • The Dutch army was the first ever to allow gays to serve openly. JMH, don’t insult them because they are chasing “terrorists” in Afghanistan hence are protecting you by preventing them to come here and harm you.

  • I have an idea! Command orders the not-comfortable troops to serve with glb members. The not-comfortable troops follow orders.

    If a soldier can follow an order to take on people who want to kill them dead, I know they can cope with that one.

  • It all comes down to having the best possible military, not having everyone be tolerant of different lifestyles.

    If a rigorous and well-conducted study (not the Zogby poll, see above!) determines that a significant minority of the military (especially combat arms troops) are uncomfortable serving with gay men and lesbians, then we should not modify the DADT policy and continue on. It is that simple.

    I am sorry if some Americans abhor macho, socially conservative, generally Christian young men who are largely homophobic, becasue these fellows largely fill the ranks of the combat arms soldiers, sailors. airmen. and marines on who we rely.

    I

  • rigorour analyst:

    If Truman had accepted your argument, the military would never have been racially integrated.

  • Army Times years ago reported a poll of enlisted ranks of the army [those who are not commissioned officers] found a majority did not object to serving with gays. This is because they are not stupid.

    The objections come from officers and politicians. This is because they are stupid.
    Or perhaps fearful of their own sexual desires for others of the same sex, so commonly found among raving homophobes.

    T

  • These homophobic idiots are forgetting one thing that LGB persons, both civilian and military, know very well: we don’t just go around announcing our orientation to everyone we meet. It’s not like we wear a pink triangle embroidered on our shirts to identify ourselves to the general public. (Though, no doubt, the christofascist Dominionist set would love it if we did – easier identification for harassment and assault.) As always, the insecure rank-and-file James Dobsons of America are imagining the worst case scenario where the gay guy in an infantry unit runs through the barracks in a dress loudly proclaiming, “I’m gay and you all have to love me for it!” and then tries to rape them in the shower. (And the rest of the unit quickly realizes that they’re actually secretly repressed gays, throw down their weapons, and spend their time getting pedicures and watching “Queer As Folk” and encouraging children to grow up to be gay atheist abortion doctors.)

    Please. Reality isn’t so bad; want to come live in it with the rest of us?

    Think about it. There are currently LGB personnel in the armed forces who are out to their units. Would they have done that if they feared for their safety, their career, their lives at the mercy of their fellow servicemembers? Highly unlikely. Those in units stuffed with Tony Perkins clones will remain silent and discreet, same as they have always done. (I certainly didn’t come out to my unit as a lesbian until my enlistment was almost up.) The only difference is that they wouldn’t be automatically kicked out of the service if the chain of command found out the gender of the person waiting for them at home. No one is asking for mandatory boy on boy porn nights. We only want to be treated with the same human dignity as straight people, and not fired because of the gender of the person we love.

    I won’t even address how incredibly insulting it is for the christofascist set to presume that every gay man out there is a predator who can’t resist humping the leg of every guy he meets. That’s just par for the course for people whose religion tells them that critical thinking skills are of the devil.

  • Just another example of how Republicans are trying to pull the country backwards instead of pushing forward. They look for every reason to find weakness in our differences.

    I think every gay man and woman currently serving should coordinate a massive “come out day.” I’m sure the military would think twice when such a large portion of their fighting forces would be discharged.

  • I am not in the military, but I have had long e-mail conversations with a straight man that is retired Army. Our paths crossed while I was given the chance to help him with something that involved his lost love, a woman that had been in a terrible accident.

    What I agreed to do for this stranger, whom I have still never seen in person, required an amount of danger… but also his trust.

    Because I felt obligated to be truthful with this man about whom I am… given that the circumstances were very important to him for emotional reasons related to his own life, I had to risk telling him that I am gay.

    I did not know if by being honest about this that I would have some army-dude come hunt me down and beat the crap out of me or not, but I could not honestly help him with what I agreed to do without him having an understanding that I knew that much of society is not ready to accept me as just a person, like anyone else.

    I was surprised by this man’s response: he told me of how he had been given the direction for a number of “gay” soldiers while he was still active in the military… that some were not “easy for the army to deal with” because they were intense in as far as dealing with how they perceived things… but that they were particularly good at dealing with difficult tasks.

    I think that if gay people are willing to risk their lives for our country, they should not have to pretend to be straight… though I also believe that gay or straight, our military enlistees should not be “getting it on” with fellow service members in the field… or on a boat… or a plane…

    There may indeed be historical accounts of how Alexander the Great was cheered on by his troops to go get frisky with Hephaestion after a great victory. I don’t think the US military is ready for THAT… but I see no problem with comrades-in-arms being truthful.

    Quite frankly, I would think a straight man going to take a shower would rather know if he were getting naked with a gay man. If the gay man behaves inappropriately, he would be out of line and in need of discipline. The same would be true of a male soldier that behaved inappropriately with a woman he was serving with.

  • let the politicians have this one. besides, the no gay policy is my son’s only ace should this country lead us into another retarded war.

  • Sorry I tried sending my words over… to be told that I already sad that. I was not aware that my words ever reached you…

    Don’t worry, I don’t expect to be attempting to post again… nor wasting time with these blogs.

    I’m not P.O.’d that what I think does not make it onto the listings of posts… but the level of hatred and/ or self-righteousness offered by so many is not anything I wish to be a part of.

    Good luck-

  • Comments are closed.