SEPTEMBER 20, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

Several weeks ago, a military chaplain came to brief my battalion, via PowerPoint presentation, on the Department of Defense’s official stance on "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell," the policy that for the past 18 years has barred soldiers from identifying as gay, and whose repeal will officially go into effect today, September 20, 2011. As the chaplain stood at the front of the auditorium, a fellow soldier leaned over to me and whispered, “There goes the fabric of the country.” I didn’t acknowledge his comment. He didn’t know I was gay, and I didn’t think this was the time or the place to tell him. Besides, I was too busy listening.
I had known the presentation was going to be uncomfortable. It wasn’t that we had just completed a field training exercise that morning, and had barely had any time to clean ourselves off. It was the fact that, despite all the debates and decisions in Washington about the merits of repeal, this was the first time that we, as soldiers, were being told what was going to be asked of us. I had spent the last several years living in a constant state of caution, the consequence of the old policy. Now we were being confronted with the consequences of the new policy—which, for many, meant a confrontation with their own prejudices and fears.
THE DAY THAT "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell" was repealed, around six months ago, I was alone in my car on my way to visit family. The U.S. Senate was scheduled to vote on the issue, and it was still unclear what the outcome would be. As I tuned the radio to follow the debate, I doubted anything would pass. But as I listened to the votes being counted, I began to realize that history was being made: More than that, I realized my life had been profoundly changed. As the final votes were tallied, I nodded and sighed a “well done.” I savored the thought of soon walking through my neighborhood with my partner without fear of getting “caught.”
But until the chaplain showed up to deliver his PowerPoint presentation, those remained idle thoughts: Neither I nor my fellow soldiers had received any official information about the pending appeal. In the interim, most soldiers didn’t much dwell on the change of policy. New variations of the ubiquitous gay jokes were passed around, of course: the first visible effect of the repeal was a constant hum of teasing. “Joe, don’t worry—you can come out soon enough”; or “You don’t have to pretend anymore.” And I still heard the word faggot, or the phrase “that’s so gay” routinely used as insults. But no one was expecting that a change in "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" was going to have immediate effects on that kind of language.
The chaplain’s bottom line was simple: As professionals, we were expected to behave respectfully toward all people, no exceptions. His presentation started by describing practical, administrative changes, but after that came the interesting part—the hypothetical scenarios, the “what-if” questions that are so common to military briefings, and that are used to vividly explain proper protocol.
One instructive example was that of a soldier who comes to an officer because he is upset that he has to shower with another soldier who identified as gay. The PowerPoint slides matter-of-factly explained how the soldier can go about requesting a separate shower time. The other examples similarly used the anodyne language of military bureaucracy to express what is actually a profound cultural change: While the chain-of-command must accommodate separation, it’s the soldier who is uncomfortable with gayness, not the gay soldier, who will now be segregated from the group.
After presenting a number of such hypotheticals, the chaplain invited the group to join the discussion. What happened next was what I expected: A lot of intense debate and discussion, much of it challenging the repeal itself. The first comment came from a soldier who said that he was uncomfortable showering with a gay person: “I mean, I am morally opposed to it and now I am being forced to deal with it?” Heads nodded. Another chimed in, “If we separate men and women based on sexual attraction, shouldn’t we separate men who are attracted to other men? It only makes logical sense. I don’t want some guy who is attracted to me in the shower with me.” (As I heard that, part of me couldn’t help but think, “Sergeant, trust me, showering together will be no pleasure cruise for either of us.”)
One officer defended the change saying that it was time to end discrimination as the Army had done several times in the past, “like we did with the integration of black people.” Almost immediately, a soldier stood-up angry that being black was compared to homosexuality: “Black is not the same as homosexual,” he shouted. There were many such instances of miscommunication. I was heartened to hear one captain offered a defense of the repeal—“These are people, too,” he told the group—but it was less comforting to hear the grumbling that followed his comments.
IN TRUTH, none of the comments I heard that morning bothered me much. It wasn’t comfortable, of course, to see my friend muttering agreement with the soldiers who were angry at the change in policy. Nor was it fun to hear that my identity could make others feel “uncomfortable,” much less that it was “morally repulsive.” But I had heard that kind of thing before, and it didn’t surprise me to hear it now. After all, I had a decade of intense self-scrutiny and a lifetime of thinking on the subject behind me. Many other soldiers, on the other hand, have never previously had to complicate their thoughts on the subject: Never forced to grapple with these questions, they simply accepted that being gay is wrong and that gay people have no place as soldiers—at least not soldiers who were openly gay.
I did wonder whether my fellow soldiers would be more accepting if they learned of my own situation. Certainly, if they knew I was gay, it would force them to acknowledge that not all the stereotypes are accurate: The greatest fears of those around me seemed to stem from the preconceived notion that gay men would not be up to the task of soldiering. Soon enough, they will learn that all soldiers, gay or straight, are professionals who have signed up to serve our country and adhere to the values which make the military great. I think most will eventually discover that some of the most professional and dedicated soldiers they have known are gay.
That said, I am in no rush to tell everyone around me about my sexuality. What bothered me about "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" was not the anonymity, but the constant fear. Finally, I can rest easy at home: I can slip into civilian clothes and go about my life as others do, without having to watch constantly over my shoulder. I suspect that many gays who are serving, are like me. We will continue to do our jobs, as we are asked, and may or may not come out. We don’t crave a big announcement, nor do we want to parade our private lives in public—soldiers, gay or straight, simply tend to be more reserved than that.
Of course, as I prepare for a potential deployment, I am thankful that this time around I don’t have to fear opening up to those with whom I serve. I can be myself. I can serve my country. I can soldier on just as everyone else. Some I will tell, eventually. And then again, maybe not at all.
At the end of the briefing, as I was still digesting what I had just heard, a soldier from my unit leaned over and said, “I just don’t think this change is going to be a big deal, do you?” I shook my head as he continued: “I just don’t think anyone cares.” He wasn’t trying to deny all the grievances we had just heard. He simply meant that for a military so used to receiving orders and executing, the repeal would be a blip on the radar—that this, too, shall pass.
I then grabbed my M4 rifle, put my body armor back on, and began the slow walk back to camp. Soon, I ran into my battle buddy. He lit a cigarette. As he smoked it, I stood alongside him. He made no mention of the briefing. Neither did I. It was only a minor distraction from the training that remained in front of us.
5 comments
The idea that all gays are battle-shy sissies is simply wrong. According to a fascinating article in the New Yorker, many of the Cadets at the Citadel military academy in South Carolina are so macho that they can't relate to women at all, and seek their girl friends among drag queens. Compare the Spartans of ancient Greece. When a Spartan man got married the bride wore boy's clothing on the wedding night so that the groom could do his duty. Why shouldn't the military take advantage of human sexual diversity? Organize battalions of Spartan style troops. There were British commandos in World War Ii who sat around the barracks sharpening their knives and discussing ballet. "That sentry was such a pretty boy, shame I had to slit his throat!" Imagine the possibilities among the Lesbian population. Send out battalions of dyke patriots to dispatch Taliban to Allah. Each of the patriots would wear around her neck the picture of an Afghan girl raped or murdered or mutilated by the Islamo-fascist monsters. There would soon be stacks of dead Taliban feeding the vultures.
- bulbman1066
September 20, 2011 at 12:58am
This sounds fishy: **"I had known the presentation was going to be uncomfortable. It wasn’t that we had just completed a field training exercise that morning, and had barely had any time to clean ourselves off."** That's good planning by your unit chaplain & command to schedule the briefing for a time when they know absolutely no one wants to be there. In my unit, we passed around the sign-in roster, listened, and moved out as soon as Chappy asked for questions or comments. No further discussion. Your unit stuck around and had conversations and went through several "what ifs." Forget that, chief. Unless this is during a 24 hour training cycle or some similar optempo, I'd be telling my guys to hustle with me and bolt for the armsroom to turn in our weapons (which you call your "M4 rifle." Hmm.), then do what I need to do to expedite the ability of my team to hit the showers, eat, and sleep. But yeah, "minor distraction" is the correct description of this DADT repeal ordeal. I feel bad for those who are compelled to hide part of their identities, but I continue to feel worse for the many bigoted redneck jackasses whose ignorance causes them to fail to grasp the greatness & variety of the human condition. They also degrade the level of professionalism in my beloved Army. I think being in a unit that focuses almost exclusively on lethal targeting & combat operations in wartime has mitigated the effects of the multitude of sex jokes & gay slurs we hear around Bragg and OCONUS outposts. Until the new policy somehow affects how service members get promoted, it's a minor distraction, indeed.
- Konstantin
September 20, 2011 at 1:40am
Agree with Konstantin. Some of the word usage sounds off. If I had to guess, I'd say this was written by a civilian associated with the military, not an active duty soldier. Of course, that's not the point... "This too shall pass" should indeed remain the prevailing theme for soldiers who, through the unfortunate bigotry of others, still feel the need to hide who they are. I speculate that, at least in combat units, they remain the exception rather than the rule. While its true that gay soldiers in deployed combat units may not have made some sort of formal accouncement to their chain of command, it was my experience that withing the extraordinarily tight individual units, it was common knowledge who happened to be gay. That's what makes, in my opinion, the typical conservative argument about how troops "coming out" will have a destructive effect on morale, especially in forward-deployed combat units. We already knew, you see. How could we not? We were as tight, or tighter, than we were to our own families. It is impossible to overemphasize how no one gives a shit about this. Ditto the showering. To piggyback on Konstantin's post (feeling bad more for the ignorant rednecks than the gay soldiers), once upon a time we had many a racist man with all sorts of dippy beliefs about blacks who, thanks to the wonders bestowed by their lives in each other's hands came to put aside such nonsense. Thus it will be for gay soldiers. Trust me on this: when you're standing under your first hot shower in a couple weeks, trying to clean the blood off your hands, thinking about the brother you just lost despite trying your best to save, and you're trying and failing to keep from sobbing thinking about the son back home he couldn't stop talking about who now will never know his father, the absolute last thing you care about is who the guy in the shower next to you happens to prefer sleeping with when he's back home in the world.
- Tristan
September 20, 2011 at 9:28am
Excellent comments so far. Two of the most difficult parts of being human: 1) Dealing with violence. How to prevent it. How to decide when we need to use it. How to keep it under control when we do decide we need to use it. 2) Dealing with sexuality. Mix 1 and 2 and you have a very dangerous combination. Well, we know how to make an atomic bomb and handle it "safely," so this should be easy.
- skahn
September 20, 2011 at 2:33pm
This sounds like an Army Reserve or NG battalion at its two-week annual training. There is a "civilian" flavor to it, yet also unmistakably Army elements as well. The statement, "I...began the slow walk back to camp" is not something anyone at Bragg, Hood, etc would say, but might be plausible at Fort Indiantown Gap, Camp McCoy and so on. The Chaplain who gave the brief is obviously not the battalion chaplain (this battalion might not be authorized one) but someone from "higher". It would be unsurprising if the reserve component is struggling to brief all its troops on the new policy during AT, which might explain the apparent lack of planning. The fact that anonymous "got himself cleaned up" before weapons turn-in (and quite possibly weapons cleaning as well) also suggests a reserve unit. I find it strange that the task of explaining this new policy would be outsourced to the chaplains when it's clearly a command issue. (But Konstantin says his battalion was briefed by what I gather was the unit chaplain, so I guess that must be the plan.) Finally, it seems much too early to me to write off this issue as a "minor distraction." I see those with current/recent military experience above saying that "no one gives a shit" about the issue, but I also see the remarks attributed to his fellow soldiers by Anonymous who has no reason to make them up. Anonymous goes on to say: "I am in no rush to tell everyone around me about my sexuality. What bothered me about "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" was not the anonymity, but the constant fear." If this is the universal view among gay military personnel, then in practice, the new policy will amount to a minor shift from DADT and will, indeed, probably have minimal impact. If, however, gay military personnel, particularly those in leadership positions, were to become more open over the course of time, about their sexuality, that might be a different story. Evidently, there have been no disruptions in the British, Canadian and other armies with similar policies. Hopefully, it will work out for us as well.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
September 21, 2011 at 1:13am