One concept which persists without visible supporting data, but which can not be disproved at this time because of the absence of data, is the idea that homosexual individuals and those who have indulged in homosexual behavior cannot acceptably serve in the military. As has been mentioned above, there have been many known instances of individuals who have served honorably and well, despite being exclusively homosexual.
—
The Crittenden Report, Page 7.
Two things should strike you about the Crittenden Report:
1) 1957? 19-fucking-57? They found no evidence that homosexual activity was harmful to the military 55 years ago and they still banned us?
2) Why is this thing not mentioned every time DADT/gay whatever is discussed? It predates by more than a decade the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses (about which more later).
The report is contradictory, and it relies upon not a hell of a lot of data -- though that's largely because there was not a hell of a lot of data on homosexual anything in 1957 -- but it is an incredible resource.
Throughout, underlining is in the original and bolding is mine.
For example, of 119 exclusively homosexual persons examined by the psychiatrist of a Philadelphia Court, 52 had had active military service during World War II. Of these, only 2 were discharged for homosexuality, 5 were discharged for other reasons, and 45 served out their period of enlistment and were honorably discharged. ... Fry reported a detailed survey of 183 men known from prewar studies to be homosexual. Of these, 132 served during World War II. Only 14 were discharged (10 for conditions other than homosexual behavior), 118 serving 1 to 5 years. Fifty eight percent were officers. The cases were distributed evenly among Army, Navy, and Air Force. These reports coincide with the experience of psychiatrists who have treated homosexuals giving a history of having served a full enlistment in the military without being detected.
The trouble with saying that homosexuality is incompatible with military service is it's ignorant at best and anti-American at worst. Fact: We queers have served with a hell of a lot of distinction and honor. So anyone who says that morale is hurt by having us around either doesn't know about us being around (more on that soon) or is attacking the dignity and honor of gay and straight troops.
And they wonder why we have parades.
In fact, the specific danger to the military is not gay troops but people who don't want to be there:
An Army witness before the Committee reported on 75 individuals who had reported themselves as having homosexual tendencies and who nonetheless were continued on duty. Of these, 50% gave very poor service and were discharged prior to the completion of their enlistment. ... These individuals had reported themselves under category III of the Army directive, and had expressed a willingness to take an undesirable discharge to get out of the Army. Obviously, they were having adjustment difficulties which may or may not have had something to do with their homosexuality. From this study it can only be said that a homosexual cannot serve acceptably if his drives are so strong that he turns himself in and requests discharge.
Indeed, the worst kind of soldier to have is the one who doesn't want to be there. The worst kind of anything is the kind that doesn't want to be there (except in the rodeo).
But even that is not quite accurate:
Another concept which continues without visible support is the concern felt over individuals professing homosexuality to avoid military service. Only rare cases of malingering of this sort have been reported, except in individuals who are under more serious charges.
Frankly, they might be lying.
[E]ven exclusively homosexual persons cannot be identified solely through physical characteristics, overt behavior, patterns of interest, or mannerisms, although some do develop feminine characteristics. It can also be said that homosexuals are neither more [n]or less talented than the general norm of the population.
Yeah, this thing is progressive. I'd like to forward it to some relatives and point out the date. This thing is older than my father -- older than our president.
But reading this with our modern relative clarity, we perhaps miss how ridiculously progressive this is. And not long after that nugget (plus many others I'm omitting from this diary because sometimes it's more fun to stumble onto things yourself than have every one dug out for you), we get this:
It is now recognized that when homosexual behavior appears for the first time (after adolescence) in an individual over forty, first thought should be given to the presence of organic brain disease as the underlying cause.
That's Page 9. It's a precious historical resource, separated as we are now some 40-plus years from when homosexuality stopped being a disease in the eyes of the medical and psychiatric community.
It's also worth noting that even given that organic brain disease pathology -- which was not unreasonable given how muddy that whole section is -- the report's authors wrote:
A third concept which persists without sound basis in fact is the idea that homosexuals necessarily pose a security risk. ... There is some information to indicate that at least some homosexuals are quite good security risks. As an example, eight enlisted men at one station were disclosed to be engaging in homosexual activities. All had Top Secret clearance and there was no evidence that any of them had broken security. ... Some feel that certain homosexuals might be better security risks than heterosexuals ...
And on the amusing historical note line, one nugget about lesbians (Page 13) made me laugh:
It is possible for two women to be in a homosexual relationship with one or both of them not being aware of the relationship until it is disrupted. This fact arises out of the common misconception that only genital activity represents sexual impulses. Actually in a continuing homosexual relationship, as in a heterosexual relationship, genital activity occupies only a minute portion of the relationship. The major portion of any such relationship is the interchange of emotions and feelings.
One wonders how much of a laugh that got in the draft meetings.
Psychiatric opinion is substantially unanimous to the effect that the confirmed "way of life" homosexual ... is a liability to the naval service, and must be separated in all cases. ...
e. Confirmed homosexuals must be separated [from the military] in all cases.
It's like they changed writers for that section (quoted portions are from Pages 16 and 18, respectively).
First they cited a bunch of self-professed gay troops who were honorably discharged. Then they ignored that collective record of service and leadership and, as if replacing it and the stuff about emotions and feelings with stuff about forcible sodomists (those "way of life" homosexuals), just started over mentally.
Then they presage something more progressive even than DADT (Pages 20-21):
It is the consensus of the Board that much can be done to encourage voluntary confessions [of homosexual tendencies or behavior] without unduly jeopardizing the best interests of those within a particular class who confess to a homosexual act or to possessing homosexual tendencies. It is considered desirable to formulate a policy to encourage confessions that lead to the separation from the service of confirmed or habitual homosexuals with discharges under other than honorable conditions but that will at the same time distinguish the individual who has transgressed in a moment of weakness from the true pervert.
It's really kind of precious, this attempt to distinguish the full- and part-time queers. The next paragraph is particularly funny, leading as it does -- "The policy should further encourage confessions to homosexual tendencies" -- to opportunities for blackmail:
One admitting to an in-service act should be subjected to a thorough psychiatric evaluation to determine in so far as possible that he has in fact committed only this non-repetitive, isolated episode in the service and that in the estimation or opinion of the psychiatrist does not in fact possess homosexual tendencies.
And the perfect test of this, if you're an unethical psychiatrist back in the day (or now), is to require sex or money or both for that "estimation or opinion" to allow the sailor to keep his job. That is particularly relevant considering Page 24's fun:
The Board found itself on firmer ground in reaching its conclusion that the type [of] discharge awarded [to long-term offenders] - again referring primarily to the Undesirable - was an inhibitor of social and economic rehabilitation in many cases. ... [T]he impression is substantial that such a discharge limits the employment opportunities available to its holder, deprives him of certain benefits, generally interferes with his economic and social readjustment, and may actually aggravate the homosexual factors involved.
Just imagine the conversation with an unethical psychiatrist.
(Confusingly, Pages 58 and 59 contain data suggesting post-military employment with a homosexuality discharge -- "by reason of homosexual activity" -- wasn't that hard to get.)
And then, many pages of speculation and well-meant medical procedure writing later, we come back to queer federal workers.
First, reread this from the report:
A third concept which persists without sound basis in fact is the idea that homosexuals necessarily pose a security risk. ... There is some information to indicate that at least some homosexuals are quite good security risks. As an example, eight enlisted men at one station were disclosed to be engaging in homosexual activities. All had Top Secret clearance and there was no evidence that any of them had broken security. ... Some feel that certain homosexuals might be better security risks than heterosexuals ...
And then Page 46, quoting a Senate report from 1950 on queer federal workers:
In the opinion of this subcommittee homosexual and other sex perverts are not proper persons to be employed in Government for two reasons: first, they are generally unsuitable, and second, they constitute security risks.
To which the amazingly (mostly) progressive report respond:
The Board was unable to uncover any statistical data to prove or disprove that homosexual are in fact more of a security risk than those engaged in other unsocial or immoral activity. Even the number of cases of blackmail revealed as a result of past investigations, which were cited to the Board, is negligible.
...
The Board is in agreement that a homosexual is not necessarily more of a security risk, per se, than other transgressors of moral and criminal codes. Further, the Board recognizes that the propensities and vulnerabilities associated with homosexual activity, as in the case of promiscuous heterosexual activity, do provide serious security implications.
The report's authors then do a wonderful job of straight-facedly saying homosexuals both are and maybe are not a security risk (48).
The data from the beginning said queer troops, veterans and federal workers were not a problem or that no problem had been identified. (The data also said -- Pages 53-54 -- that a lot of gay sailors were teenagers from small towns who hadn't gone to college and were in their first enlistment. Raise your hand if you're surprised.)
The opinions derived from data were reasonable if sometimes limited -- in the 1950s, the medical establishment was still figuring out homosexuality. Something that represented such a departure from such a fundamental thing -- sex -- was sure to be seen as deviant for a while. So if you didn't want to do it with the opposite sex, something was wrong.
And even having the medical community weigh in against homosexuality as a mental illness, for homosexuality as a matter of biology and against conversion therapy as a valid medical practice doesn't matter because man, ignorance is strong. As such, when the report's authors deviated from the data and went by opinion, the 1950s were in full force.
But that's the thing about history. To me, this is the far bigger deal:
Fry reported a detailed survey of 183 men known from prewar studies to be homosexual. Of these, 132 served during World War II. Only 14 were discharged (10 for conditions other than homosexual behavior), 118 serving 1 to 5 years. Fifty eight percent were officers.
So much for homosexuality being incompatible with military service.
And then we have this from a 20-year-old gay discharge case:
In 1976, the Chief of Naval Personnel stated that "no empirical proof exists at this time to support the Navy's contention that homosexuality has an adverse effect upon the completion of the military mission." Memorandum from Chief of Naval Personnel to Judge Advocate General (Aug. 2, 1976).
There is no proof. There has never been proof. Nobody ever actually cites anything showing any adverse effect.
There was no evidence in 1950, in 1957, in 1976, in 1988, in 1992, in 2008 or in any other year. And even in the early days of homosexuality in the military being a concern, you'd think one of these reports would have mentioned actual deleterious effects had any been observed. (See that book for a much better discussion of Crittenden than you're getting here.)
A pity it took more than 50 years of looking for something and finding nothing for enough of the right people to be convinced that finding nothing meant doing something.