Such numbers seem to invalidate the belief that military leadership has become more accepting of homosexuals. Or, as former Clinton appointee Ginny Apuzzo states, “Maybe [homosexuals] in the service got a false sense of security. I suspect it was a backlash [to Clinton’s policy].”
Regardless of the reason, homosexuals are still being dismissed from service at levels rivaling the pre- “Don’t ask, don’t tell” era. Statistics illustrate clearly that except for a minor dip in the early ’90s, homosexuality is still considered to be incompatible with military service by many of the older generation of officers and senior NCOs. It is estimated that 2.5 percent of the active duty military, 36,000 members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are homosexual. When one considers the strain the military is currently under to maintain all of its commitments around the world and at home it becomes clear that the services can hardly afford to lose these highly trained and dedicated men and women. Clearly, there is some fault with a logic that doesn’t tolerate open homosexuality but has increasingly allowed recruits with criminal backgrounds to enlist. According to Department of Defense records published in the New York Times (February 14, 2007), waivers granted to recruits with criminal records have grown 65 percent over the past three years. Approximately 125,525 waivers have been granted to recruits servicewide since 2003. Apparently misdemeanor criminal offenses are somehow placed morally above the admission of homosexuality. More to the point, while convicted criminals are not discriminated against in the military, law-abiding homosexuals are forced to lead a double life in which they and their loved ones are not eligible for housing and other marriage benefits given to heterosexual counterparts in the military, their partners are not eligible for death benefits, and they are subject to dismissal and loss of pension if they openly speak of their sexual orientation.
However, cracks are starting to appear in the military’s discriminatory facade. As mentioned earlier, in 1989, Col. Grethe Cammermeyer was discharged after disclosing her sexual orientation as part of the interview process for the position of Chief Nurse of the Washington State Army National Guard. After several years in the courts, she won the right to return to the Washington State National Guard. The Federal District Court in Seattle declared that the policy under which she was dismissed was unconstitutional and based on prejudice. Col. Cammermeyer returned to active duty in 1994 and retired in 1997.
The story of Col. Cammermeyer is just one of the first that sets an important legal precedent. However, it is important to note that while her case is significant, it was limited to the National Guard of Washington State. If similar cases are called to the Supreme Court against the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, or the Army itself, the Justices will have to consider Col. Cammermeyer’s case before making a decision. That decision, like so many made in the Supreme Court before it, could prove to be another landmark day for American civil rights.
Editor's Note: A week after we went to press, Democratic Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts introduced legislation to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Read more about Rep. Meehan's proposal at www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=43841.
