Violation of Human Rights: Homosexuality and Military Essay

Many homosexuals that served in the Military prior to 2015 had to hide who they were and their loved ones throughout their career. They were forbidden to get married and receive the same benefits as their heterosexual

The issue of gays in the military has been controversial in the United States for many decades. Over these decades there have been many different proposals as to what approach to take in order to handle the situation of homosexuals in the military. However, in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running for President of the United States, he made a promise to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military if he was elected (Washington Post). Bill Clinton followed through with his promise, and in December 1993 he instituted “a defense directive that military applicants should not to be asked about their sexual orientation” (Washington Post). This is now known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was the result

Justin Cook is a student at Stanton College Preparatory who is currently in the eleventh grade. Cook is enrolled in an AP Psychology and takes a great interest in connecting the work he does in the class to the work in his other current classes. In this essay, Cook presents his argument on why homosexuals should be permitted to serve in the American Armed Forces primarily from a psychological standpoint. Cook is an active advocate for human rights and the equality of homosexuals. He is also an active supporter of The Trevor Project which is the only American non-profit organization that runs a 24/7 suicide and crisis prevention helpline for gay and questioning youth.

Karen O. Donovan 's article about military culture explores military tradition, and the impact social changes in society has on the military. These changes included the policy change regarding gays six years ago. At that time gays were acknowledged in the military when the military ended years old

The second point of how life would change is in the barracks. If you knew that someone in your barracks or platoon was gay or lesbian would you want them there? Would you just not worry about them or would you go to a higher ranked person and asked if the gay or lesbian be removed? Personally if I knew that a gay or lesbian person bunked next to me or above me I would have a problem with it. There’s a difference between someone that acts homosexual and a person that acts straight around straight people but act gay around gays. People that are gay and engage in homosexual activities should be discharged and not allowed to serve in the

Lately, there has been an outbreak of people of the LGBT community coming out in the military. Historically the United States has had a policy of discharging gays in the military. There has been an act called the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, it is basically saying that as long as somebody does not ask about your gender preferences, you do not have to tell. Even though the ban has been lifted, many militaries still say they cannot accept anyone from the LGBT inside. They do not care about how well you can perform or your strengths and that mindset is going to come back and hit them in the long run. Militaries that are judging these kids are taking them away from somewhere they feel safe and a place where they can finally belong. Members of the LGBT community find refuge in the military. It was one of the only places where they can prove their worth, where people aren’t focusing on their sexuality. They shouldn’t be judged based on their sexual preferences. Instead, they should be judged on their personality, performance, and their ability to get the job done precisely and correctly.

In the most publicized gay bashing, the dead body of Adam R. Schindler Jr., an American naval radioman, was found battered and disfigured in a public toilet in a park in Japan where he had been serving [Sterngold]. After revealing his homosexuality to his peers in the army, he had been left unrecognizably mutilated and beaten to death. In response, in 1993, the Clinton administration initiated “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” [DADT] which meant that military officers could not investigate a soldier’s sexual preference without reason and a soldier should not voluntarily disclose it [McGowan 4]. Historically, the US military had never directly banned gays, only their actions of sodomy, but a change occurred during the World Wars after the Christian

The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is a major policy of the armed forces of the United States, and allows a number of people to serve their country. This policy restricts the United States armed forces from discovering gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy has, in a way, limited homosexuals from completely fulfilling their military duties by forcing them to serve in the military silent about their personal lives. The policy is a violation of equal rights, forces homosexuals to violate the military code of honor, and causes disputes among fellow soldiers and should be repealed.

January 20, 1950 – Army Regulation 600-443 is published, identifying three categories of homosexuals. Those deemed to be aggressive are placed in Class I and are subjected to general court-martial. Homosexuals considered active but non-aggressive are placed in Class II and can avoid a court-martial by accepting a dishonorable discharge – or resigning, if they are officers. Personnel professing or exhibiting homosexual tendencies without committing a violation of the sodomy statute are designated "Class III," and can be removed from service under general or honorable discharge.

Despite the challenges and following numerous public debates and congressional hearings, President Clinton has able to reach a compromise in 1993. “The ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue’’ policy passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993 was the compromise outcome of Clinton’s campaign promise to repeal the ban on military service by homosexuals” (Rich, Schutten & Rogers, 2012). Soldiers would not be actively screened and as long as their sexual orientation was kept personal, there would be no adverse actions taken. Under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” between 1993 and 2011, over 14,000 military men and women were discharged due to their sexual orientation (“11 Facts About,” n.d.).

Some believe that the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell will create a division between the men and woman serving in the armed

In 1999, more than 1,000 men and women were discharged from military service due to their sexuality. That number has actually decreased compared to recent years. (Suro NP) Homosexuals were purged from federal employment in 1950, with Bill Clinton updating that policy in 1993 by adding the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” policy. (Deicher 176) This policy doesn’t work and needs to either be updated again or the ban against homosexuals lifted. Gays should be allowed to fight for the military for employment reasons, the right to fight for one’s country, and because they are no different from anyone else. The fact of the matter is that not even experts can argue in favor of keeping the

The Clinton administration and military leaders defend the current policy and the way it has been enforced. They argue that allowing gay people to serve openly would harm military readiness by destroying troops' morale and disrupting order and discipline. Policy defenders argue that the military is a special institution that holds itself to stricter rules than those observed by the rest of society. Because the armed forces must fulfill the crucial mission of defending the U.S. and its allies, they say, its leaders' views on how to achieve optimal readiness should be respected. Pentagon officials say that while they believe the current policy is working well, they will investigate cases of alleged abuse.

Many individuals were highly gracious at this idea, no matter the negativity that surrounds this topic. When referencing to the article by the New York Times on Ashton Carter’s announcement, he states “Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so. After all, our all-volunteer force is built upon having the most qualified Americans” (Rosenberg, 2016). The article’s point of view perceives an appreciative tone towards the U.S. military members and how much they sacrifice. For their sacrifices, the government is willing to help formulate policies that can open doors to a new tolerance and acceptance towards sexual identity. Through my discovery of this change in policy, I realized how much this will help not only the individuals who are suffering from this condition but it will help the companionship of the military. I struggle with being completely open with my fellow service members because of the tension there was on the topic of sexual identity. After hearing the statements made by both the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Secretary, I felt like I am part of a whole different world now that there is an understanding of the struggles and tolls taken to maintain personal happiness in such a demanding career. Having higher authorities who are able to implement policies amongst the U.S. government who have vital points of views on this controversial

In the past two decades, the rapidly expanding trend among countries has been towards decrease in human rights allegations against LBGT people. With the emergence of regional government institutions to keep the problem in check and the increasing accessibility of international courts to pursue and take action against violations of gay rights, the world has taken a