In the midst of McCarthyism and an increasing number of gay discharges from the miltary, a report was issued in 1957, when John McCain was 21 years old, by the Secretary of the Navy. This report would be so controversial that the Department of Defense would deny its existence (and its findings) for the next twenty years. The report, officially titled "Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directives Dealing With Homosexuals," and more commonly known as the "Crittenden Report" was one of the first of its kind to reveal that gay soldiers could serve openly with no trouble. The report also acknowledged for the first time that many gay servicemembers are in the US military and serve honorably.
The Crittenden report also notes that, interestingly enough, "intelligence officers sometimes considered heterosexual relations more of a security threat than homosexual conduct." They noted that the indiscretion that took place mattered more than the orientation of the people involved. There were, of course, no changes recommended in light of these new findings.
The report debunked and dismissed as "without sound basis in fact", the claim that gays pose a risk in and of themselves. Not only had no intelligence agency produced facts to back up their opinions, but no analysis of gay vs. non-gay troops was even done. It goes so far as to equate homosexual activity with heterosexual activity, saying that homosexual activity nor promiscuous heterosexual activity, are risky to the military.
In fact, "heterosexuals" were allowed to have homosexual sex, provided that they never identified as homosexuals. This long-standing policy was officially made a part of military regulations in 1982.
Seen from a distance, the logic of the military's denial of homosexuality in the ranks was simple: as long as no homosexuals were enlisted, soldiers could play at being lovers (and even consummate the roles) without ever having to acknowledge those feelings. Whatever happened, happened. There was a war on.
The implied double standard was made official in 1982. The Department of Defense regulations adopted that year allow a heterosexual to have homosexual sex and to be exonerated -- so long as he or she states that the incident was a lapse. Gay and lesbian soldiers, by contrast, are discharged just for identifying themselves as such.
Knowledge of the gay ban's hypocritical nature was becoming more widespread during the '60s and '70s. Studies noted that during wars, such as World War 2, gays were allowed to serve and fight for our country, only to be relieved of duty after their return from fighting.
In 1966, ""A national campaign to end the exclusion of homosexuals from the armed forces was set in motion..." in Los Angeles. 6 The New York Times still referred to homosexuals as "deviates.""
Miriam Ben-Shalom's experience as the first servicemember to be reinstated after being booted from the service for homosexuality serves as direct evidence of the heavy-handed use of the gay ban:
During this time, she also became involved with lesbian-feminist organizations and made no attempts to hide her sexual orientation. In 1975, Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich appeared on the cover of Time as an openly gay Air Force service member. As Randy Shilts reports, this caused Ben-Shalom to ask her commander, "Why don't they kick me out?" His response, "Because you're a good NCO," characterized the ambiguity of both the military's official policy on gays and lesbians and its treatment of them. It was often up to their discretion whether to investigate personnel for homosexuality and recommend discharging them from the military.
Yet Ben-Shalom quickly realized how fickle a commander's discretion could be. When she graduated from drill sergeant's school, she decided to come out publicly. Her frank response to a reporter's question about her sexuality led her commander to push for her discharge. In spite of being able to tolerate her sexual orientation in private, he was not comfortable with her speaking about it publicly. In 1976, she was officially discharged from the Army Reserves, but she decided to challenge the policy and sue for re-instatement.
In May 1980, Judge Terence Evans of the U.S. District Court in Chicago ruled that Ben-Shalom's discharge violated the First, Fifth, and Ninth amendments of the Constitution. He added that sexual orientation should be protected from governmental regulation, including that of the military.
Ben-Shalom's case eventually made it all the way to the Supreme Court, who declined to hear it, effectively ending her military career. Cases like this are not uncommon. The gay ban is ruining the lives and careers of some servicemembers, while others skate through. And we know from experience that it is hurting people who deserve it the least. Take Margaret Witt, for example. She recently won her case, because it was proved that her dismissal, not her homosexuality, had a deleterious effect on unit cohesion. Actually firing her for homosexuality hurt the military. She did such a great job that she was missed, and needed, by her fellow comrades.
In 1980, an editorial said, ""The Navy's lengthy hearings on charges of homosexual behavior against eight female sailors were a worrisome spectacle. The drama before a three-person panel in California raised disturbing questions about the quality of military justice and also about the military's unchanging hostility toward homosexuality.""
Then, in 1989, a new report claimed that gay soldiers "...in many cases make better soldiers than heterosexuals.""
And yet here we are in 2010 with some of our Congresspeople fighting to keep the ban in place. Here we are with complete disengagement from our president who campaigned to get rid of the ban. And even the head of the Marines is still spewing discounted homophobic lies. And then there's John McCain, who's old enough to have seen thirteen studies on homosexuality in the military in his lifetime, all off which show that gays should be allowed to serve openly.
This has been discussed enough since 1957. It's time to just get rid of it.