The following is the second half of Mr. Lapiner's 2 part column concerning why homosexuals should be allowed in the Armed Forces.
Department of Defense guidelines, February 5, 1987: "Active duty personnel are not allowed to participate in organizations that overtly discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, religion or national origin." Those guidelines are still in effect and that means that by today's standards, active duty personnel are not allowed to participate in the Armed Forces. On January 28, 1993, a federal judge declared that the ban on homosexuals is unconstitutional. He made no reference to the 1987 guidelines.
With so much being said by so many, the hyperbole must ascend to ridiculous heights. One David Mixner, identified only as a civil rights veteran: "We have nothing closer to an apartheid law than this military ban." C'mon now. Enough taurifecalism.
From the other side: "The officers concede that there are now and always have been thousands of homosexuals in the military. But they also say that to acknowledge that fact would inject an element of..." So, the military spokespeople announce that they are not announcing that they are admitting what they're not admitting. (See Charles Carroll: "The Walrus and the Carpenter.")
Another unidentified flag officer is worried about the "Practical questions of living in cramped quarters." Now see here, sir. It may be a long time since you descended to the lower levels, but let me remind you that there are no double beds in the barracks.
At various public fora, hearings and inquisitions, the brass conceded that "there are now and always have been thousands of homosexuals in the military..." Why are they still in service if their sexual preference is grounds for dismissal? Obviously they are still there because their conduct has not led to the "disruption of good order and discipline."
(I got started on this and it's hard to stop but I'll control myself or it could become a doctoral dissertation, thus assuring that it would be ignored. Nothing new has been said on either side of the controversy since Damon and Pythias, who might have been just good friends.)
Along came Weepin' Willie who proposed a half-assed solution to a demi-buttocked campaign promise; Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue. To anyone who has been in the military for more than two hours, that is patently ridiculous. The president also specified that there would be "no conduct detrimental to good order, discipline and morale." Out of deference to his station, I'll call that taurifecalism-for anyone else it's bullshit.
What the brass fears essentially is that the disruption of "good order, discipline and morale," will be done by the straights. Gay bashers, civilian or military, are typically people who suffer from intense feelings of inferiority and need someone "to feel better than." Catholics, Jews and Blacks were and still are likely targets. Now gays have become the latest group to be victimized by their bigotry.
Recognize it. The motivation for gay bashing is classic bigotry, even when-especially when-the bigot claims biblical justification. I'm not saying that everyone who is against homosexuals is a bigot-that would be bigoted. What am I saying? If you've read this far you know.
A thought about the "thousands of homosexuals" who have served well and honorably and are now veterans. Since they were, in effect, illegally in the service, serving under false pretenses as it were, may Congress deprive them of whatever benefits they are entitled to? Cancel their medals? Deny burial in national cemeteries? Postmortem discrimination?
That's not idle legalistic nitpicking. Just say, "entitlements for homos" to any knuckleheaded patriot and stand back for the reaction. If you don't know what to expect, ask someone who has heard a Southerner say in 1964-"Do you want your daughter to marry a Negro?"
In the final analysis, the Armed Forces have more than adequate means to deal with anyone who misbehaves, gay or straight, and there need be no concern with what part of the anatomy is used to commit the infraction to "good order and discipline."
For those of us who remember, the arguments against lifting the ban on homosexuals are identical, point for point, word for word, as those advanced against Harry Truman's order integrating the Armed Forces in 1948. Leading the chorus of generals important enough to be listed in encyclopedias, nay-sayers all, chanting "good order, discipline and morale," was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, five-star General Omar N. Bradley.
(Bradley had been the senior commander of American forces in Europe. He was Eisenhower's military brains and ran the war while Ike was busy giving press conferences.)
Would any rational person say today that Truman's coerced integration was a mistake?
If Truman had capitulated to his critics, General Colin Powell would not have been in a position today to object to lifting the ban on gays. He'd be lucky to be a corporal in the motor pool.
(Editor's note: Part of this article appeared in the Ithaca Times, Feb 4, 1993. For more on the subject, wait for the publication of Major Lapiner's book, "Everything That Goes 1, 2, 3 Ain't a Waltz.")