The Users Presentation
This is the Users presentation I done to help me answer some important questions about my project.
Gay brothers may hold genetic clues
M. Spencer Green / AP file
Julio Cabrera, a student at DePaul University in Chicago, is participating in a study of 1,000 pairs of gay brothers. Researchers are looking for genetic clues to the origin of homosexuality.
CHICAGO — Julio and Mauricio Cabrera are gay brothers who are convinced their sexual orientation is as deeply rooted as their Mexican ancestry.
They are among 1,000 pairs of gay brothers taking part in the largest study to date seeking genes that may influence whether people are gay. The Cabreras hope the findings will help silence critics who say homosexuality is an immoral choice.
If fresh evidence is found suggesting genes are involved, perhaps homosexuality will be viewed as no different than other genetic traits like height and hair color, said Julio, a student at DePaul University in Chicago.
Adds his brother, “I think it would help a lot of folks understand us better.”
The federally funded study, led by Chicago area researchers, will rely on blood or saliva samples to help scientists search for genetic clues to the origins of homosexuality. Parents and straight brothers also are being recruited.
While initial results aren’t expected until next year — and won’t provide a final answer — skeptics are already attacking the methods and disputing the presumed results.
Previous studies have shown that sexual orientation tends to cluster in families, though that doesn’t prove genetics is involved. Extended families may share similar child-rearing practices, religion and other beliefs that could also influence sexual orientation.
Research involving identical twins, often used to study genetics since they share the same DNA, has had mixed results.
One widely cited study in the 1990s found that if one member of a pair of identical twins was gay, the other had a 52 percent chance of being gay. In contrast, the result for pairs of non-twin brothers, was 9 percent. A 2000 study of Australian identical twins found a much lower chance.
No single ‘gay gene’
Dr. Alan Sanders of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, the lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects there isn’t one so-called “gay gene.”
It is more likely there are several genes that interact with nongenetic factors, including psychological and social influences, to determine sexual orientation, said Sanders, a psychiatrist.
Still, he said, “If there’s one gene that makes a sizable contribution, we have a pretty good chance” of finding it.
Many gays fear that if gay genes are identified, it could result in discrimination, prenatal testing and even abortions to eliminate homosexuals, said Joel Ginsberg of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.
However, he added, “If we confirm that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, we are much more likely to get the courts to rule against discrimination.”
Orlin Wagner / AP file
Mauricio Cabrera, photographed at his home in Olathe, Kan., is, along with his brother, Julio, participating in the study. Both are convinced their sexual orientation is as deeply rooted as their Mexican heritage, and they hope new research will help silence critics who say homosexuality is an immoral choice.
There is less research on lesbians, Sanders said, although some studies suggest that male and female sexual orientation may have different genetic influences.
His new research is an attempt to duplicate and expand on a study published in 1993 involving 40 pairs of gay brothers. That hotly debated study, wrongly touted as locating “the gay gene,” found that gay brothers shared genetic markers in a region on the X chromosome, which men inherit from their mothers.
That implies that any genes influencing sexual orientation lie somewhere in that region.
Previous attempts to duplicate those results failed. But Sanders said that with so many participants, his study has a better chance of finding the same markers and perhaps others on different chromosomes.
If these markers appear in gay brothers but not their straight brothers or parents, that would suggest a link to sexual orientation. The study is designed to find genetic markers, not to explain any genetic role in behavior.
And Sanders said even if he finds no evidence, that won’t mean genetics play no role; it may simply mean that individual genes have a smaller effect.
Skeptics include Stanton Jones, a psychology professor and provost at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Ill. An evangelical Christian, Jones last month announced results of a study he co-authored that says it’s possible for gays to “convert” — changing their sexual orientation without harm.
Jones said his results suggest biology plays only a minor role in sexual orientation, and that researchers seeking genetic clues generally have a pro-gay agenda that will produce biased results.
Sanders disputed that criticism.
“We do not have a predetermined point we are trying to prove,” he said. “We are trying to pry some of nature’s secrets loose with respect to a fundamental human trait.”
Jones acknowledged that he’s not a neutral observer. His study involved 98 gays “seeking help” from Exodus International, a Christian group that believes homosexuals can become straight through prayer and counseling. Exodus International funded Jones’ study.
The group’s president, Alan Chambers, said he is a former homosexual who went straight and believes homosexuality is morally wrong.
Critics espouse ‘freedom to choose’
Even if research ultimately shows that genetics play a bigger role, it “will never be something that forces people to behave in a certain way,” Chambers said. “We all have the freedom to choose.”
The Cabrera brothers grew up in Mexico in a culture where “being gay was an embarrassment,” especially for their father, said Mauricio, 41, a car dealership employee from Olathe, Kan.
They had cousins who were gay, but Mauricio said he still felt he had to hide his sexual orientation and he struggled with his “double life.” Julio said having an older brother who was gay made it easier for him to accept his sexuality.
Jim Larkin, 54, a gay journalist in Flint, Mich., said the genetics study is a move in the right direction.
Given the difficulties of being gay in a predominantly straight society, homosexuality “is not a choice someone would make in life,” said Larkin, who is not a study participant.
He had two brothers who were gay. One died from AIDS; the other committed suicide. Larkin said he didn’t come out until he was 26.
“I fought and I prayed and I went to Mass and I said the rosary,” Larkin said. “I moved away from everybody I knew … thinking maybe this will cause the feelings to subside. It doesn’t.”
BORN OR BRED? – Article
Science Does Not Support the Claim
That Homosexuality Is Genetic
By Robert Knight
The debate over homosexual “marriage” often becomes focused on whether homosexuality is a
learned behavior or a genetic trait. Many homosexual activists insist that “science” has shown
that homosexuality is inborn, cannot be changed, and that therefore they should have the “right
to marry” each other.
Beginning in the early 1990s, activists began arguing that scientific research has proven that
homosexuality has a genetic or hormonal cause. A handful of studies, none of them replicated
and all exposed as methodologically unsound or misrepresented, have linked sexual orientation
to everything from differences in portions of the brain,1,2 to genes,3 finger length,4 inner ear
differences,5 eye-blinking,6 and “neuro-hormonal differentiation.”7
Meanwhile, Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was
instrumental in removing homosexuality in 1973 from the American Psychiatric Association’s
list of mental disorders, wrote a study published in the October 2003 Archives of Sexual
Behavior. He contended that people can change their “sexual orientation” from homosexual to
1 D.F. Swaab and M.A. Hofman, Brain Res. 537 (1990): 141-48, as cited in Dennis McFadden and E.G. Pasanen, “Comparisons
of the auditory systems of heterosexuals and homosexuals: Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions,” Proceedings of the National.
Academy of Science USA 95 (March 1998): 2709-13.
2 Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science Vol. 253
(1991): 1034-37.
3 D.H. Hamer, S. Hu, V.L. Magnuson, N. Hu and A.M.L. Pattatucci, Science 261(1993): 321-27, as cited in McFadden.
4 B.J. Sigesmund, “Let Your Fingers Do the Talking,” Newsweek “Web Exclusive,” 31 March 2000.
5 McFadden and Pasanen.
6 “Sexual orientation ‘hard-wired’ before birth – startling new evidence revealed in the blink of an eye,” press release, University
of East London (UEL), England, October 2, 2003, reporting on findings by the UEL’s Dr. Qazi Rahman, along with the Institute
of Psychiatry’s Dr. Veena Kumari and Dr. Glenn Wilson. In terms of eye-blink reactions to sudden loud noises, “The team
discovered significant differences in the response between male and female, and heterosexual and homosexual subjects.”
Rahman: “The startle response is pre-conscious and cannot be learned.”
7 Qazi Rahman, “Comments on the Neuroanatomy of Human Sexual Orientation and Proposed Neuroendocrine Hypotheses,”
Contemporary Neurology (1999): Number 2A: http://mitpress.mit.edu/jrnls-catalog/cont-neuro.html.
2 25SR-004
heterosexual.8 Spitzer interviewed more than 200 people, most of whom claimed that through
reparative therapy counseling, their desires for same-sex partners either diminished significantly
or they changed over to heterosexual orientation. Although still a proponent of homosexual
activism, Spitzer has been attacked unmercifully by former admirers for this breach of the
ideology that people are “born gay and can’t change.” Immutability is a central tenet of
demands for “gay rights” and “gay marriage.”
Because no single study can be regarded as definitive, more research on people who have
overcome homosexuality needs to be done. But a considerable body of previous literature about
change from homosexuality to heterosexuality has been compiled, and the sheer number of
exceptions to the “born gay” theory should be a warning to researchers and media to proceed
with caution before declaring that science has “proved” that homosexuality is genetic.9
Other recent developments also suggest that homosexuality is not genetically determined. The
Washington Post reported that bisexuality is fashionable among many young teen girls, who go
back and forth from being “straight” to “gay” to “bi” to “straight” again.10
Post reporter Laura Sessions Stepp writes:
Recent studies among women suggest that female homosexuality may be grounded more
in social interaction, may present itself as an emotional attraction in addition to or in
place of a physical one, and may change over time.11
She cites one such study by Lisa M. Diamond, assistant professor of psychology and gender
studies at the University of Utah, who in 1994 began studying a group of females aged 16 to 23
who were attracted to other females.12 Over the course of the study, “almost two-thirds have
changed labels,” Stepp reports.
Against increasing evidence that homosexual behavior is neither inevitable nor impossible to
resist, a number of studies have been widely publicized as “proof” of a genetic component. But
they are either poorly constructed or misreported as to their significance.
In 1993, Columbia University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons
examined the most prominent “gay gene” studies on brain structure and on identical twins, and
published the results in the Archives of General Psychiatry. They found numerous
methodological flaws in all of the studies, and concluded that:
8 Robert L. Spitzer, “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?”, Archives of Sexual
Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003: 403-417.
9 See, for instance, Charles Socarides, A Freedom Too Far: A Psychoanalyst Answers 1,000 Questions About Causes and Cure
and the Impact of the Gay Rights Movement on American Society (Phoenix, Arizona: Adam Margrave Books, 1996), pp. 115-
155, particularly pp. 151-152.
10 Laura Sessions Stepp, “Partway Gay? For Some Teen Girls, Sexual Preference Is a Shifting Concept,” The Washington Post,
January 4, 2004, p. D-1.
11 Ibid.
12 Lisa M. Diamond, “Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period,”
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology (in press as of 2004).
3 25SR-004
There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. … [T]he appeal of
current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction
with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of
experimental data.13
After he was roundly attacked by homosexual activists, who accused him of providing
ammunition for conservatives to challenge the gay rights/civil rights comparison based on
immutability, Byne denounced the “false dichotomy: Biology or Choice?” and stated that he was
also skeptical of environmental theories of sexual orientation. He wrote: “There is no compelling
evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation,” and that he would never “imply that
one consciously decides one’s sexual orientation.”14 But the fact remains that Dr. Byne has
poked gaping holes in the most influential studies purporting to prove that homosexuality is
inborn.
In May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a Fact Sheet, “Gay, Lesbian and
Bisexual Issues,” which includes this statement:
“Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality.
However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological
etiology for homosexuality.”
Beyond the false comfort that homosexuals need not seek to alter their behavior in any way,
there may be another motive behind the release and enthusiastic reporting of these studies:
political advantage. As Natalie Angier wrote in The New York Times on September 1, 1991:
[P]roof of an inborn difference between gay and heterosexual men could provide further
ammunition in the battle against discrimination. If homosexuality were viewed legally as
a biological phenomenon, rather than a fuzzier matter of “choice” or “preference,” then
gay people could no more rightfully be kept out of the military, a housing complex or a
teaching job than could, say blacks.15
Simon LeVay, whose brain study in 1991 “jumped from the pages of the periodical Science to
The New York Times and Time, then to CNN and Nightline, and from there to the dinner tables
and offices of the country,” according to writer Chandler Burr, was quite open in his assessment
of the possible impact of his work. “[P]eople who think gays and lesbians are born that way are
also more likely to support gay rights.”16
13 William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General
Psychiatry, Vol. 50, March 1993: 228-239.
14 Letter from William Byne to Dean Hamer, 2 July 1993, as quoted in Chandler Burr, A Separate Creation: The Search for the
Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation (New York, New York: Hyperion, 1996), p. 81.
15 Natalie Angier, quoted in Charles W. Socarides, “A Freedom Too Far,” (Phoenix, Arizona: Adam Margrave Books, 1995), p.
94.
16 Simon LeVay, quoted in A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., and Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D., “The Innate-Immutable
Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” 2002, the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality,
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html.
4 25SR-004
In his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover writes:
We will see later the falsity of activists’ repeated assertions that homosexuality is
immutable. They seek to create the impression that science has settled these questions,
but it most certainly has not. Instead, the changes that have occurred in both public and
professional opinion have resulted from politics, pressure, and public relations.17
Despite critical examination, as well as comments by the studies’ own authors that the “gay”
research has been distorted or exaggerated, some of the studies are often cited as “proof” that
“gays are born that way.” A few other studies have arisen in more recent years with as many
flaws or have been misreported in similar fashion. Here is a brief overview of some of the
studies:
UCLA’s Study on Genes and Mice Brains
In October 2003, the journal Molecular Brain Research published a study by UCLA researchers
indicating that sexual identity is genetic.18 Reuters reported it this way: “Sexual identity is wired
into the genes, which discounts the concept that homosexuality and transgender sexuality are a
choice, California researchers reported.”19 A number of other media outlets picked up on this
theme, creating the impression that this study was yet one more piece of evidence for a genetic
theory of homosexuality.
The trouble is, the study doesn’t say anything about homosexuality. All it does is support a
widely accepted theory about hormones and gender. Here is Princeton Professor Dr. Jeffrey
Satinover’s assessment:
The research is a decent piece of basic science and confirms what geneticists have long
known must be the case: That the hormonal milieu that causes sexual differentiation
between males and females is itself determined by genes, in mice as in men. This comes
as no surprise.
But this research says absolutely nothing about homosexuality or transsexualism and any
who claim it does are either ill-informed about genetics, or if not, are deliberately abusing
their scientific knowledge and or credentials in the service of politics – in precisely the
same way that Soviet-era geneticists such as Lysenko did – either in the naïve hope that
distortion of the truth can produce a better society or out of fear for their career prospects.
In either case they should be roundly rebuked for doing so.20
17 Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Hamewith Books, Baker Books,
1996), p. 38.
18 Phoebe Dewing, Tao Shi, Steve Horvath and Eric Vilain, “Sexually dimorphic gene expression in mouse brain precedes
gonadal differentiation,” Molecular Brain Research, Vol. 118, Issues 1-2, 21 October 2003: 82-90.
19 Reuters, “Study says sexual identity is genetic,” 20 October 2003.
20 E-mail correspondence, 21 October 2003.
5 25SR-004
The Hypothalamus
The first widely publicized claim for a “gay gene” came in 1991 when Salk Institute researcher
Dr. Simon LeVay published a study in the journal Science noting a difference in a brain structure
called the hypothalamus when evaluating 35 men – 19 homosexuals and 16 heterosexuals.21
LeVay found that the hypothalamus was generally larger in heterosexual men than in
homosexual men. He concluded that the findings “suggest that sexual orientation has a biologic
substrate.”22
The media splashed the study on front pages and TV and radio broadcasts from coast to coast,
despite the fact that LeVay himself cautioned:
“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a
genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common
mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. …Since
I looked at adult brains, we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they
appeared later.”23
The study also had major problems, which LeVay himself readily admits. First, all 19 of his
homosexual subjects died of complications associated with AIDS. The difference in the
hypothalamus might have been caused by chemical changes in the brain as a response to AIDS.
Dr. Byne argued in Scientific American that “[LeVay’s] inclusion of a few brains from
heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address the fact that at the time of death
virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself
or the side effects of particular treatments. … Thus it is possible that the effects on the size of
the INAH3 [hypothalamus] that he attributed to sexual orientation were actually caused by the
hormonal abnormalities associated with AIDS.”24
In addition, six of the “heterosexual” men died of AIDS. LeVay admitted later that he didn’t
actually know whether the subjects in his heterosexual sample were, indeed, heterosexual; all of
these subjects were simply “presumed heterosexual.” Given that very few straight men in San
Francisco were contracting AIDS at the time (and still aren’t), this was a wildly unscientific
assumption.
Another weakness of LeVay’s study is that his sample included major “exceptions.” Three of the
homosexuals had larger clusters of neurons than the mean size for the heterosexuals, and three of
the heterosexuals had clusters smaller than the mean size for the homosexuals. LeVay
21 LeVay, op cit.
22 Ibid.
23 Quoted in David Nimmons, “Sex and the Brain,” Discover, Vol. 5, No. 3 (March 1994): 64-71 and cited in A. Dean
Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., and Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D., “The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in
Science,” National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality Web site,
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html, downloaded 12 January 2004.
24 E. Byne, “The Biological Evidence Challenged,” Scientific American (May 1994): 50-5.
6 25SR-004
acknowleged that these exceptions “hint at the possibility that sexual orientation, although an
important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH3 [hypothalamus] size.”25
LeVay is an open homosexual, and some comments he made to Newsweek suggest he had an
agenda from the outset of the research. He said he believes that America must be convinced that
homosexuality is biologically determined. “It’s important to educate society,” he said. “I think
this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes.”26
Since LeVay released his study, other researchers have found that life experiences can alter brain
structures, so it is premature to assume inborn origins for behavioral differences. In 1997, for
example, University of California at Berkeley psychologist Marc Breedlove released a study that
showed that sexual activities of rats actually changed structural aspects of the brain at the base of
the spinal chord. Breedlove said:
These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case—that sexual
experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. You can’t assume
that because you find a structural difference in the brain, that it was caused by genes. You
don’t know how it got there.27
Breedlove is not an activist out to prove homosexuality is not biological. In fact, he said he
believes that a genetic component exists somewhere and is doing his own research in this area.
The X Chromosome
In 1993, a group of medical researchers at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) led by Dr. Dean
H. Hamer released a study of 40 pairs of brothers that linked homosexuality to the X
chromosome. The research, published in Science, reported that 33 of the pairs of brothers had
DNA markers in the chromosome region known as Xq28.
The study won an enormous amount of media attention, and Hamer’s own activities as a
homosexual activist within NCI were ignored when Hamer offered interviews only when
reporters agreed not to identify him as a homosexual.
But even Hamer tempered his enthusiasm about the research results.
We knew that the genes were only part of the answer,” he said in a speech given in Salt
Lake City. “We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it
does in most, if not all behaviors.28
25 LeVay.
26 D. Gelman, D. Foote, T. Barrett, M. Talbot, “Born or Bred,” Newsweek, 24 February 1992, 46-53.
27 Pat McBroom, “Sexual Experience May Affect Brain Structure,” Berkeleyan campus newspaper (University of California at
Berkeley), 19 November 1997 (http://www.urel.berkeley.edu/berkeleyan/1997/1119/sexexp.html).
28 Dean Hamer, The Science of Desire (New York, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), p. 82.
7 25SR-004
In a later interview, Hamer said, “Homosexuality is not purely genetic. … [E]nvironmental
factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. …I don’t think we
will ever be able to predict who will be gay.”29
Hamer’s results are often misunderstood. Many believe that the study found an identical
sequence (Xq28) on the X chromosome of all homosexual brothers in the study. In reality, what
it found was matching sequences in each set of brothers who were both homosexual. Dr. Byne
argues that in order to prove anything by this study, Hamer would have had to examine the Xq28
sequence of homosexual men’s heterosexual brothers. Hamer insisted that such an inclusion
would have confounded his study. Byne responds: “In other words, inclusion of heterosexual
brothers might have revealed that something other than genes is responsible for sexual
orientation.”30
In the same edition of Science that carried the Hamer study, Elliot Gershon, chief of the clinical
neurogenetics branch of the National Institute of Mental Health, said, “There’s almost no finding
that would be convincing by itself in this field. We really have to see an independent
replication.”31
The National Cancer Institute sponsored the “gay gene” research. This study alone cost $419,000
of the institute’s taxpayer-backed funds, according to The Washington Times.32
The National Institutes of Health’s Office of Research Integrity investigated Hamer over
allegations by a colleague that he ignored evidence that conflicted with his hypothesis. NIH
never released the results of the inquiry, but Hamer was shortly thereafter transferred to another
section. He had done the “gay gene” research under a grant to work on Kaposi’s Sarcoma, a skin
cancer that inordinately afflicts homosexual men.
One of Hamer’s researchers told the Times that homosexuality is “not the only thing we study,”
but it is “a primary focus of study.” Hamer reportedly stated he has pushed for an Office of Gay
and Lesbian Health inside the National Institutes of Health, and he testified in opposition to
Colorado’s Amendment 2, which sought to keep homosexual activists from winning minority
class status. Then-Sen. Robert C. Smith (R-New Hampshire) accused the doctor of “actively
pursu[ing] … a gay agenda.”33
Another fact that casts doubt on Hamer’s conclusions is that other researchers tried to replicate
his study but failed. In 1999, Drs. George Rice, Neil Risch and George Ebers published their
findings in Science after attempting to replicate Hamer’s Xq28 study. Their conclusion: “We
were not able to confirm evidence for an Xq28-linked locus underlying male homosexuality.”
29 From speech in Salt Lake City in Lili Wright, “Science of Desire Is Topic for ‘Gay Gene’ Finder,” Salt Lake Tribune, 28 April
1995.
30 Byne.
31 “Evidence for Homosexuality Gene,” Science, Vol. 261, 16 July 1993: 291.
32 Joyce Price, “Federal Cancer Lab Hunts for Gay Gene,” The Washington Times, 3 April 1994.
33 Ibid.
8 25SR-004
Moreover, they added that when another group of researchers (Sanders, et al.) tried to replicate
Hamer’s study, they too failed to find a genetic connection to homosexuality.34
The Twins Study
In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study that examined identical and
fraternal twin brothers and adopted brothers in an effort to establish a genetic link to
homosexuality. Fifty-two percent of the identical twins were reportedly homosexual, while only
22 percent of fraternal twins fell into the same category. But since identical twins have identical
genetic material, the fact that nearly half of the identical twins were heterosexual effectively
refutes the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.35
“This finding alone argues for the enormous importance of nongenetic factors influencing
homosexuality,” writes Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, “because … in order for something to be
genetically determined, as opposed to merely influenced, the genetic heritability would need to
approach 100 percent.”36 Satinover, a psychiatrist, notes that “identical twins reared together
share more significant environmental influences than nonidentical twins reared together,” and
that narcissism, a key component of homosexuality, is more likely among identical twins who
“grow up with mirror images of themselves.”37 (Italics in original.)
In his analysis of the medical evidence purportedly supporting a biological cause of
homosexuality, Dr. Byne noted other twin studies:
Without knowing what developmental experiences contribute to sexual orientation … the
effects of common genes and common environments are difficult to disentangle.
Resolving this issue requires studies of twins raised apart.38
Other physicians have also criticized the study for overvaluing the genetic influence.39
Dr. Byne’s arguments might lead some activists to label him a “homophobe.” He is, in reality,
quite the contrary. Byne readily advocates societal acceptance of homosexuality and “gay
rights,” but nevertheless concludes, “Most of the links in the chain of reasoning from biology to
social policy [regarding homosexuality], do not hold up under scrutiny.”40
Bailey conducted another study in 1999, published in the March 2000 issue of the Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, which actually showed less possible genetic influence on
homosexuality than the first twins study. He sent a questionnaire to the entire Australian Twin
Registry. Only three pairs of identical male twins were both homosexual out of a total of 27 in
34 Dean H. Hamer, George Rice, Neil Risch, and George Ebers,et al. “Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation” (Technical
Comment), Science 285 (6 August 1999: 803a.
35 J. Michael Bailey, Richard C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry 48
(1991): 1089-96.
36 Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, p. 85.
37 Ibid.
38 Byne.
39 T. Lidz, “A Reply to ‘A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation’” [letter], Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (1993): 240.
40 Ibid.
9 25SR-004
which at least one was homosexual. Of the 16 fraternal male twins, none of the pairs was both
homosexual. Bailey found similar results for lesbians.41
Hormones
In 1998, Dennis McFadden and Edward G. Pasanen published a study that evaluated auditory
systems. Specifically, the study considered differences in echo-like waveforms emitted from an
inner ear structure of people with normal hearing. These waves are higher in women than in
men, a factor often attributed to the level of a person’s exposure to androgen (a male hormone)
in his or her early development as a fetus.42
In self-acknowledged lesbians, the waveforms ranged between those of men and those of
heterosexual women. The researchers concluded that this suggests that female homosexuality
could result from larger exposure to the male hormone androgen in the womb (homosexual men
did not show the same variation).43
The media eagerly jumped on this bandwagon. But even the researchers themselves did not
draw definitive conclusions. In the published study, they pointed out that exposure to “intense
sounds, certain drugs, and other manipulations” can lower the level of these auditory waveforms.
“Thus, it may be that something in the lifestyles of homosexual and bisexual females leads them
to be exposed to one or more agents that have reduced the [waveforms], either temporarily or
permanently.”44
Moreover, even if the hearing differences were caused by an increased exposure to androgen in
the womb, scientists would still be far from proving that this exposure is a cause of
homosexuality—especially since the difference was not apparent in the male homosexual
sample.
Finger Length
In March 2000, the media publicized a finger length study that indicated that lesbians had longer
fingers than other women, perhaps because of greater exposure in the womb to androgen.
Typically, both sexes’ index finger is slightly shorter than the ring finger—a difference that is
seen more clearly on the right hand. In females, the ring finger and index finger are almost the
same size, but in men the index finger is more noticeably shorter.
In this study, Berkeley’s Dr. Breedlove, who had in 1997 shown how sexual activity can change
brain structure, found that homosexual women’s finger length had a tendency to follow the male
pattern. But Breedlove cautioned about reading too much into the finding:
41 Stanton L. Jones, “The Incredibly Shrinking Gay Gene,” Christianity Today, 4 October 1999, p. 53.
42 McFadden.
43 Ibid, 2709.
44 Ibid, 2712.
10 25SR-004
“There is no gene that forces a person to be straight or gay,” he told CNN. “… I believe there are
many social and psychological, as well as biological, factors that make up sexual preference.”45
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover commented as follows on the study:
A girl who develops before and into puberty with a “masculinized habitus” (the result of
excess maternal intrauterine androgen stimulated by a genetic condition in the fetus)—a
stocky physique, facial hair, powerful muscles, a square jaw and long fingers—may
suffer so much teasing and rejection by family and peers that she comes to think of
herself as “not feminine” and so will seek solace in the arms of women. Indeed, this an
all-too-common pattern in the lives of “ lesbians” and illustrates exactly how a strong
genetic “ association”’ can imply literally zero genetic causation whatsoever. It’s rather
remarkable that the authors failed to remark on the support their study provided not for
any genetic association with lesbianism, but rather for the genetic association to
secondary sexual expression in homo sapiens that Vilain et al were only able to
demonstrate in mus musculus. The attention paid to homosexuality in both cases, while
ignoring straighforward sex, reflects the distinctly Orwellian effect that political
correctness has on science: We now treat the differences between male and female as
socially constructed and those between heterosexuality and homosexuality as innate and
genetic.46
Eye Blinking
In October 2003, a team of English researchers announced that they had found “powerful new
evidence that sexual orientation is ‘hard-wired’ in the human brain before birth.”47
Dr. Qazi Rahman of the University of East London and Dr. Veena Kumari and Dr. Glenn Wilson
of the Institute of Psychiatry said they found sex differences in the startle response – the eye
blink in response to loud noises.48
The authors found that women had a lesser “prepulse inhibition of the human startle response
(PPI),”49 that is, they blinked more readily than men, and that lesbians blinked less readily than
other women. They used small samples, and, more significantly, found no difference between
homosexual men and heterosexual men. Yet they gave the impression that their findings
indicated that homosexuality is a pre-born condition.
45 “Male hormone levels in womb may affect sexual orientation, study says,” CNN.com, health, 29 March 2000,
(http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/29/gay.fingers/index.html).
46 Private communication with the author.
47 “Sexual Orientation ‘hard-wired’ before birth – startling new evidence revealed in the blink of an eye,” press release,
University of East London, England, 2 October 2003.
48 Qazi Rahman, Veena Kumari, and Glenn D. Wilson, “Sexual Orientation-Related Differences in Prepulse Inhibition of the
Human Startle Response,” Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 117 (5): 1096-1102.
49Ibid, p. 1096.
11 25SR-004
“Because the startle response is known to be involuntary rather than learned, this strongly
indicates that sexual orientation is largely determined before birth,” said a press release from the
University of East London.50
Dr. Rahman said in the release, “These findings may well affect the way we as a society deal
with sexuality and the issues surrounding sexual orientation.”
But the researchers themselves introduce some cautionary notes in the study:
Although prenatal factors may be possible precursors to the neurobehavioral profiles
observed in lesbians and gay men, whether neural differences underlie sexual orientation
per se, or are a consequence of homosexual or heterosexual behavior, is yet to be
determined.51
They also write: “Neuroanatomical and neurophysiological variations between heterosexuals and
homosexuals may be due either to biological factors or to the influence of learning.”52
The team concluded that: “Our results show, for the first time, that PPI relates to sexual
orientation and that homosexual women show a robust cross-sex shift. Homosexual women
showed a masculinized PPI that was no different from that of heterosexual men. … Homosexual
men did not differ from heterosexual men.”53
Dr. Halstead Harrison, an associate professor emeritus in the Atmospheric Science Department
of the University of Washington, reviewed the study, noted the small sizes of the test groups (14
lesbians and 15 heterosexual women, and 15 each of homosexual and heterosexual men) and the
statistical methods, and concluded: “Data presented by Rahman et al. do not confidently support
their finding that homosexual women exhibit a male-type startled-blink reflex.”54
Harrison further stated that “no significant differences were detected.”
As far as the blink reflex being utterly innate or somewhat trainable, he responded to an
interviewer, “Now, that’s an open question.”55 Dr. Harrison also said he would have liked to
have seen the complete data on the series of tests to see whether the subjects’ responses would
change with repetition. This would indicate whether the PPI is entirely innate.
In his conclusion, he said: “This Comment should not be construed as falsifying the hypothesis
that homosexual and heterosexual women display different prepulse startle-inhibition reflexes.
That conjecture may turn out to be so, but the present data do not confidently support it.”
50 Press release, “Sexual orientation ‘hard-wired’ before birth.”
51 Ibid., p. 1097.
52 Ibid,, p. 1099.
53 Ibid,, p. 1098.
54 Halstead Harrison, “A Technical Comment on the paper, ‘Sexual Orientation-Related Differences in Prepulse Inhibition of the
Human Startle Response,’” University of Washington Web site, 15 December 2003,
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~harrison/reports/rahman.pdf.
55 Telephone interview with Patrick Henry College senior and Culture & Family Institute intern Jeremy Sewall, 8 March 2004.
12 25SR-004
Neuroendocrine Hypotheses
In 1999, Dr. Qazi Rahman compiled a brief review of several studies purporting to show a link
between neuroanatomy and sexual orientation.56
He wrote: “The emerging neuroanatomical account suggests that, in some key neural substrates,
homosexual men show a trend toward female-typical neuroanatomy as compared to heterosexual
men.”57
Rahman also said, “Lesbians excel at some tasks which favor heterosexual males.”
As in the eye-blinking study, Rahman struck a cautionary note: “But is neuroendocrine
differentiation a cause or a consequence of behavior? … In addition, the differential
development posited may not be causal but correlational.”
Rahman noted that, “Differential reinforcements from inputs in the psychosocial milieu to these
sex-atypical behaviors makes the ‘pre-homosexual child’ view the same sex as ‘exotic’ (i.e.,
different from one’s self), which later in puberty becomes the object of eroticization.”58
As some developmental psychologists have observed, some children may be less inclined to
exhibit classic gender role differences, and this may set them up for the type of reactions from
peers (or even parents), such as rejection or teasing, that make them vulnerable to developing
same-sex attraction.59
One glaring problem with Rahman’s article is that he uncritically cites many of the studies that
were thoroughly debunked by researchers such as Columbia’s Byne and Parsons. These include
studies by LeVay, Hamer, Allen, Gorski, Bailey and others.
Rahman wraps up his piece this way:
To conclude, it is important to illustrate that neurobiological differences between
homosexuals and heterosexuals are by no means decisive. Nonetheless, the several
independent findings of neuroanatomical differences in sex-atypical directions are not
easily refutable. [Editor’s note: Yes, they are. Byne and Parsons, among others, saw to
that.] Unfortunately, evidence currently available is limited and largely correlational in
nature. Owing to this, it is not possible for alternative developmental processes associated
with sexual orientation to be excluded.60
56 Qazi Rahman, “Comments on the Neuroanatomy of Human Sexual Orientation and Proposed Neuroendocrine Hypotheses,”
Journal of Contemporary Neurology, The MIT Press, Vol. 1999, No. 2A.
57 Ibid,, p. 2.
58 Ibid, p. 3.
59 Numerous references to this phenomenon are reported throughout Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., Reparative Therapy of Male
Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1991).
60 Rahman, op. cit., p. 3.
13 25SR-004
Conclusion
Determining whether something has a biological cause is difficult, and locating a specifically
genetic link is even more so. The handful of studies that purportedly add up to incontestable
“proof” that homosexuals are “born that way” are inconclusive at best and, as Dr. Rahman notes,
“largely correlational in nature.” In some cases, such as the twins studies, the evidence strongly
indicates that early environment is more likely the dominant factor to have produced homosexual
desires.
As Dr. Satinover emphasizes, correlation does not mean something is causative. Basketball
players are tall, so height correlates with playing basketball, he notes. But there is no
“basketball-playing gene.” Efforts to turn some interesting correlations into causal factors have
not been successful and yet have been misused to advance a political agenda.
Perhaps the best way to describe the situation is this, as paraphrased from Dr. Satinover: Some
people may be predisposed because of genetic, prenatal hormonal influences or other physical or
brain differences to have personalities that make them vulnerable to the environmental factors
that can elicit homosexual desires. So is homosexuality biological? Not in the way that popular
media and homosexual activists have presented it.
Extremely shy and artistic young boys, for instance, who are not affirmed in their masculinity by
a caring father, might be at risk for homosexuality. It’s not because of a homosexual “gene,” but
because of an interrupted process of achieving secure gender identity. This can make some boys
who crave male affirmation an easy mark for seduction into homosexuality. A similar pattern can
be seen in girls who don’t fit classic gender profiles, need feminine affirmation, and are targeted
by lesbians who play upon the girls’ emotional needs.
Such children’s vulnerability is all the more reason to protect them from early exposure to
homosexual influences. The Boy Scouts of America, for instance, is right to screen out as troop
leaders those men who desire other males sexually. The Scouts do so not out of bigotry, or a
belief that all homosexual men molest boys. They do so out of genuine concern for the health
and well-being of the boys in their charge, including those who might be sexually vulnerable.
Americans for too long have been pummeled with the idea that people are “born gay.” The
people who most need to hear the truth are those who mistakenly believe they have no chance
themselves for change. It is both more compassionate and truthful to give them hope than to
serve them up politically motivated, unproven creations like the “gay gene.”
Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for
America. This paper is a revised and updated version of “Born & Bred: The Debate Over the
Cause of Homosexuality”(last updated in June 2000) by former Concerned Women for America
staff writer Trudy Chun.
Four Stages of Coming Out
Stage One: “I Feel Different From Other Kids . . .”
In retrospect, many gay and lesbian teens say they sensed something “different” about themselves early in life, sometimes as far back as age five. A boy may have been inclined to play house instead of sports, and vice-versa for a girl. Patterns of social isolation from peers frequently start here.
Stage Two: “I Think I Might Be Gay, But I’m Not Sure. and If I Am, I’m Not Sure That I Want To Be . . .”
Puberty is when many homosexual youngsters first realize that they are attracted to members of their own sex. A common response is to try to bury those feelings. “Young gay people often go through a stage where they label themselves bisexual,” says Dr. Donna Futterman, “as a way to give themselves more options.”
Relatively few gay adolescents declare their homosexuality, or come out, during this stage of identity confusion. They may isolate themselves from other teens for fear of being exposed, or “outed.” Loneliness is frequently a way of life, especially if they live in a community that doesn’t have an active gay-youth subculture. Imagine growing up unable to confide in your own parents or to truly be yourself when among friends.
Stage Three: “I Accept The Fact That I’m Gay, But What’s My Family going To Say?”
Studies of homosexual men and women found that most did not come to accept their sexual orientation until they were in their late teens or their twenties. As societal prejudice against gays and lesbians abates, albeit slowly, a youngster may arrive at this point somewhat earlier.
Stage Four: “I Finally Told My Parents I’m Gay.”
In a study, there was an on-line survey of nearly two thousand gay and bisexual young people aged twenty-five or under. On average, the respondents were sixteen the first time they revealed their sexuality to anyone. Homosexual teens often don’t begin to date in earnest until they’re out of high school and on their own—possibly in a city with a sizable gay population. Feeling free to explore their sexuality for perhaps the first time, they may become romantically involved with a number of partners. You could almost say they’re going through a delayed adolescence, having experiences that straight kids may encounter earlier in their sexual development.
Mums gone gay – Documentary
Drama focusing on what happens to a family when the mother comes out as gay. The narrative unfolds over the course of two weeks, as they react to the news of their mother’s homosexuality
Central to the story is the experience of the 16-year-old daughter, following her journey from initial feelings of shock, anger and disgust, to a greater acceptance through her changing relationship with her family and teenage peers.
Set in suburban middle England, the programme deals with gay issues away from the clichés of the gay ‘scene’ by seeing them within a context of everyday family life.
Gay to Z – Documentary
This programme looks at young people looking for love, being in love and experiencing relationships. It shows different ways of meeting partners, ranging from the traditional to the potentially dangerous. It also shows some of the difficulties that can be involved in being LGB, especially in terms of coming out to parents and family who may have negative reactions.
SERIES SYNOPSIS
Gay to Z introduces six lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) young people. All of them are leading very different lives and experiencing very different issues. The series acknowledge that many young people who choose to come out experience discrimination and exclusion, and find it difficult to access the support they need – but it also celebrates the positive aspects of these vibrant young lives.
My Transsexual Summer – Documentary
This is a fantastic documentary about 7 people that are all going through the same thing. It shows the fight that they go through, the will power, the consequences and the boundaries that they come up against every day. It is a great insight to their sexuality. I will update it eace week with the new episodes as a fallow their story.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/my-transsexual-summer/4od
The Most Hated Family In America – Documentary
This is a documentary by the bbc back in 2007, about the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas U.S.A. Its is very interesting to see how strong minded this people are and how they live their lives, but it is also very hard to listen too. It angers me that people in this day and age still believe this and still live by this, tho I think this has a lot to do with the fact that i am just coming to terms with my homosexuality and i am still trying to answer my own questions but these people have no hope of seeing life any other way.
I cant find the last video, i am looking for it and when i get it i will up load it too.
The Most Hated Family In America In Crisis.
This is a Fallow up to the family after one of their daughters left the church.
Jeremy Kyle talks to the most hated family in america.
This is the Jeremy Kyle Show where he invited the family on to the show and asked them some very important questions.
Facebook Chat about opinions on the DADT Bill.
When I came across the DADT Bill I was rather confused on why it actually existed and the point of it. The way it came across to me was that you could take a bullet for your country but you were not aloud to be gay while doing it. I just thought that was so crazy and unfair and discriminating. So to help me understand this I asked two of my friends from America. One is for the democrat party and is a politics major and the other is for the conservative party and is a Latin major. Angie and Sarah are best friends and love debating the governments in their country so I thought they would be perfect to help me understand.
Angie Matturro – Democrat
Hey got a rather political question for you. Clinton in 93 signed the (dont ask dont tell)DADT bill, and only this year Obama ended it. As a politics student, I’m curious what you views are on the LBGT community and this bill. For me the way it comes across to me is that you can take a bullet for your country but you cant be gay while doing it.
Yeah, I agree. I mean DADT ended and the world didn’t end. In fact there are many instances of fairly high ranking members of the military getting kicked out just because they’re not straight. I think it’s ridiculous, but in some ways I think that it could be semi dangerous for people. The military is going to have to make some internal and cultural changes in order to ensure that soldiers from the LGBT community are treated with the same respect that is required in the military. DADT was at least a step in the right direction, from before when you were simply not allowed to serve in the us military if you were gay.
lol are you writing a report??
No I am doing research for my masters project, and I was looking it to the political side of homosexuality and I stumbled apon the DADT bill. I wanted to ask your views. I want to ask sarah too because she is for the conservative party and your a democrat, but im not sure if I should, considering you two are for two different political parties. Am I right in saying that the conservative party was for the DADT and wants it reinstated?
hmmm kind of. I mean, the main thing backing DADT for the conservatives is that they’re afraid that with gay men in the units that their fellow soldiers will be less willing to back them up. the way the american military usually works is that you’re put into a squad and really you defend those people with your life and they become your brothers and sisters. the conservatives are afraid that allowing people to be openly gay in the military will hurt this. I personally think it’s completely crap because it’s been proven not to matter…so at this point conservatives don’t really have any backing to their claims…meaning that they’re just rallying against gays in blatant discrimination. They are more for DADT then for having openly gay people in the military, but I wouldn’t say that it’s a direct conservative thing. I’m almost positive if you asked Sarah she’d say that she didn’t care…
Yea that makes a little more sense. Thanks. I’ll ask her.
Sarah O’Bernier – Conservative
Thank you!
Okay, well personally I think that it’s wrong to take a negative stance on homosexuality. I believe that separation of church and state exists to protect the country as well as protect religious institutions. My problem with the government taking a stance on the issue is that it only gains strength for the argument against homosexuality because of religious influence. I don’t know how the government can use a viable excuse against homosexuality without using Biblical support, and that in itself violates the principle. I have heard from some members in the service though that it honestly serves as a protection for the individual themselves in the army in that they do not have to tell if they are or are not gay. While I don’t understand the logic behind it, the said you needed to be in the military to understand. I don’t, but that’s what I’m told. It is a tricky issue. Is the government overstepping its bounds, or is it trying to protect its own citizens? (the gay ones in the military) I think that DADT was instated so that homosexuals that wanted to serve in the armed forces could do so without discrimination. (meaning being allowed in and allowed to serve) In the big realm of things though, I don’t get why people even care about each others orientation. At work, I don’t blab about me being straight 24/7, and homosexuals don’t either…. I’m so flip floppy on this sorry. If people weren’t bigoted and hateful about the issue of homosexuality, then I would say 100% not to have a policy like DADT, but due to some stories I have heard of people being harmed for their orientation, then I think that I can understand that the government can try to use it as a protection. That might just be a line of bullshit though…. lol. It’s definitely a crazy, complicated issue.
Thank you. This is a great point of view. I know it is a very complicated subject I just got confused with some of the research I was doing and you and angie have made sence of it for me. so thank you.
Sarah O’Bernier
ahhh I’m glad it kind of made sense. I felt like I was rambling. I’m glad it helped! How is your research going?
Thank you, no it is a great view, and it has helped me. It was really hard to understand it, I think mostly cause im not an american and I dont know what way the military works and what the point of the bill was but getting ur two point of views really help and will be a great wee treasure to my research. Its going well so far. Just very mixed views and opinions as of yet, but it is very interesting to see how the world is coping with homosexuality. Keep an eye for my blog posts coming up soon. you can keep up with me.
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
The “don’t ask” part of the DADT policy specified that superiors should not initiate investigation of a servicemember’s orientation without witnessing disallowed behaviors, though credible evidence of homosexual behavior could be used to initiate an investigation. Unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women led to an expansion of the policy to “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, don’t harass.””Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) was the official United States policy on homosexuals serving in the military from December 21, 1993 to September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. The restrictions were mandated by United States federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). The policy prohibited people who “demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence “would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” The act prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specified that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct should be separated (discharged) except when a service member’s conduct was “for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service” or when it “would not be in the best interest of the armed forces”.
A congressional bill to repeal DADT was enacted in December 2010, specifying that the policy would remain in place until the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that repeal would not harm military readiness, followed by a 60-day waiting period. A July 6, 2011 ruling from a federal appeals court barred further enforcement of the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members. President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent that certification to Congress on July 22, 2011, which set the end of DADT for September 20, 2011.
Background
Further information: Sexual orientation and the United States military
The U.S. Army training guide on the homosexual conduct policy gives official guidelines on what can be considered credible information of someone’s homosexuality.
Sodomy has been grounds for discharge from the American military since the Revolutionary War, but the LGBT-related policies changed over the course of the 20th century. Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin was the first soldier discharged from the U.S. military (at that time, the Continental Army) for sodomy, in 1778.
As the United States prepared to enter World War II, the military added psychiatric screening to its induction process. At the time, psychiatry labeled homosexuality as an indicator of psychopathology, and this notion was added to military practices. The first time “homosexual” people were distinguished from “normal” people in the military literature was in revised army mobilization regulations in 1942. Whereas before the buildup to the war gay servicemembers were court-martialed, imprisoned and dishonorably discharged, in wartime commanding officers found it difficult to convene court-martial boards of commissioned officers and the administrative blue discharge became the discharge of choice for gay and lesbian personnel. In 1944, a new policy directive decreed that homosexuals were to be committed to military hospitals, examined by psychiatrists and discharged under Regulation 615-360, section 8.
In 1947, blue discharges were discontinued and two new classifications were created: “general” and “undesirable”. Under such a system, a servicemember found to be gay but who had not committed any sexual acts while in service would tend to receive an undesirable discharge. Those found guilty of engaging in sexual conduct were usually dishonorably discharged.[11] A 1957 U.S. Navy study known as the Crittenden Report dismissed the charge that homosexuals constitute a security risk, but advocated stringent anti-homosexual policies because “Homosexuality is wrong, it is evil, and it is to be branded as such.” It remained secret until 1976. Fannie Mae Clackum was the first service member to successfully appeal such a discharge, winning eight years of back pay from the US Court of Claims in 1960.
From the 1940s through the Vietnam War, some notable gay servicemembers avoided discharges despite pre-screening efforts, and when personnel shortages occurred, homosexuals were allowed to serve.
The gay and lesbian rights movement in the 1970s and 1980s raised the issue by publicizing several noteworthy dismissals of gay servicemembers, with Sgt. Leonard Matlovich appearing on the cover of Time in 1975. The Department of Defense issued a 1982 policy (DOD Directive 1332.14) stating that homosexuality was clearly incompatible with military service. The policy garnered public scrutiny through the 1980s and 1990s, and it became a political issue in the 1992 U.S. presidential election with Bill Clinton and others citing the brutal murder of gay Navy petty officer Allen R. Schindler, Jr.
After Bill Clinton won the presidency, Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton’s planned repeal effort. Clinton called for legislation to overturn the ban, but it encountered intense scrutiny by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the public. DADT emerged as a compromise policy.
Origin
The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation. At the time, per the December 21, 1993 Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, it was legal policy (10 U.S.C. § 654) that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and that persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging service members.
Congress overrode Clinton by including text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy. The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993, issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation. This is the policy now known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. The phrase was coined by Charles Moskos, a military sociologist.
The full name of the policy at the time was “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue.” The “Don’t Ask” provision mandated that military or appointed officials will not ask about or require members to reveal their sexual orientation. The “Don’t Tell” stated that a member may be discharged for claiming to be a homosexual or bisexual or making a statement indicating a tendency towards or intent to engage in homosexual activities. The “Don’t Pursue” established what was minimally required for an investigation to be initiated. A “Don’t Harass” provision was added to the policy later. It ensured that the military would not allow harassment or violence against service members for any reason.
At times beatings of gay personnel were severe and occasionally even fatal, as in the case of Allen R. Schindler, Jr.. In defense of his DADT policy, President Clinton cited U.S. Navy Radioman Third Class Schindler, brutally murdered by shipmate Terry M. Helvey (with the aid of an accomplice), leaving a “nearly-unrecognizable corpse”. DADT has officially prohibited such behavior, but harassment continues.
In the midst of the 1993 controversy, the National Defense Research Institute prepared a study for the Office of the Secretary of Defense published as Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment. It concluded, in measured language, that “circumstances could exist under which the ban on homosexuals could be lifted with little or no adverse consequences for recruitment and retention”[26] if the policy were implemented with care, principally because many factors contribute to individual enlistment and re-enlistment decisions.
In Congress, Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia led the contingent that favored maintaining the absolute ban on gays. Reformers were led by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who favored modification (but ultimately voted for the defense authorization bill with the gay ban language), and retired Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, who argued on behalf of full repeal. After Congressional phone lines were flooded by organized anti-gay opposition, President Clinton backed off on his campaign promise to repeal the ban in favor of DADT.
Reservist exception
In September 2005, the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military – a think tank affiliated with the University of California, Santa Barbara, and renamed the Michael D. Palm Center in October 2006 – issued a news release revealing they had found a 1999 FORSCOM Regulation (500-3-3 RC Unit Commander’s Handbook) that allowed the active duty deployment of Army Reservists and National Guard troops who say that they are gay or who are accused of being gay. U.S. Army Forces Command spokesperson Kim Waldron later confirmed the regulation and indicated that it was intended to prevent Reservists and National Guard members from pretending to be gay to escape combat.
Court challenges
Main article: Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America
DADT has been upheld by four of the federal Courts of Appeal, and in a Supreme Court case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. (2006), the Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal government could constitutionally withhold funding from universities if they refuse to give military recruiters access to school resources, in spite of any university nondiscrimination policies.
In 2004 a federal lawsuit challenging DADT was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation’s largest Republican gay organization. The case went to trial in 2010, before Judge Virginia A. Phillips. Plaintiffs stated that the policy violates the rights of gay military members to free speech, due process and open association. The government argued that DADT was necessary to advance a legitimate governmental interest. Plaintiffs introduced admissions by President Barack Obama, from prepared remarks, that DADT “doesn’t contribute to our national security”, “weakens our national security”, and that reversal is “essential for our national security”. According to plaintiffs, these statements alone satisfy their burden of proof and compel judgment in favor of Log Cabin Republicans on the due process claims.
On September 9, 2010, Judge Phillips ruled that the ban was unconstitutional, as a violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.
On October 12, 2010, Judge Phillips granted a worldwide, immediate injunction prohibiting the Department of Defense from enforcing or complying with the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy, and ordered the military to suspend and discontinue any investigation or discharge, separation, or other proceeding that have been commenced under the policy.[35][36] The Department of Justice responded with an appeal and a request for a stay of the ruling, a request which was denied by Phillips but granted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 20.
On October 19, 2010, military recruiters were told they could accept openly gay applicants. On October 20, 2010, Lt. Daniel Choi, an openly gay man who had previously been honorably discharged under DADT, re-enlisted in the US Army.[40] On October 20, 2010, a federal appeals court in California granted a temporary stay reversing a worldwide injunction against enforcement of the US military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy maintaining the DADT policy.
On November 1, 2010, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Judge Phillips’ injunction pending appeal. The plaintiffs applied to the US Supreme Court to overrule the stay, but the Supreme Court did not intervene.
Following passage of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, the Justice Department asked the Ninth Circuit to suspend LCR’s suit in light of the legislative repeal. LCR opposed the request, noting that gay personnel were still subject to discharge. On January 28, 2011, the Court denied the Justice Department’s request. The Obama administration responded by requesting that the policy be allowed to stay in place while they completed the process of assuring that its end would not impact combat readiness. On March 28, the LCR filed a brief asking that the court deny the administration’s request.
While waiting for certification, several service members were discharged under DADT at their own insistence, until July 6 when a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals re-instated Judge Phillips’ injunction barring further enforcement of the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members. Oral arguments for appealing Judge Phillips’ ruling that DADT is unconstitutional are to be scheduled for the week of August 29, 2011. On July 11, the appeals court asked the DOJ to inform the court if it intends to proceed with its appeal. On July 14, the Justice Department filed a motion “to avoid short-circuiting the repeal process established by Congress during the final stages of the implementation of the repeal.” attorneys warned of “significant immediate harms on the government.” On July 15, the Ninth Circuit restored most of the DADT policy. However, the new order continued to explicitly prohibit the government from discharging or investigating openly gay personnel.
The Phillips ruling barring DADT enforcement was vacated following repeal of the policy by a panel of three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Military Readiness Enhancement Act
Main article: Military Readiness Enhancement Act
The Military Readiness Enhancement Act was a bill introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2005 by Rep. Martin T. Meehan with the stated purpose “to amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell,’ with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” The bill was introduced again in 2007 and 2009.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010
See also: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010
The Senate passed S.4023 65-31 with all Democrats (except for one abstention) and 8 Republicans in support.
Both yes
One yes, one did not vote
One yes, one no
One no, one did not vote
Both no
In his 2008 election campaign, President Barack Obama advocated a full repeal of the laws barring homosexuals from serving in the military. On October 10, 2009, Obama stated in a speech before the Human Rights Campaign that he will end the ban, but offered no timetable. As president, Obama said in his first State of the Union Address in 2010, “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.” This statement was quickly followed up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen voicing their support for a repeal of DADT.
On March 25, 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced new rules mandating that only flag officers may initiate discharge proceedings and imposing more stringent rules of evidence be used during discharge proceedings.
On May 27, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Murphy amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 on a 234–194 vote that would repeal the relevant sections of the law 60 days after a study by the U.S. Department of Defense is completed and the U.S. Defense Secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the U.S. President certify that repeal would not harm military effectiveness. On the same day the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee advanced the identical measure in a 16–12 vote to be included in the Defense Authorization Act. The amended defense bill passed the U.S. House on May 28, 2010. On September 21, 2010, John McCain led a successful (Yea 56, Nay 43) filibuster against the debate on the Defense Authorization Act. The bill languished in the Senate until December.
Obama meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the eve of publication of a Defense Department report on repeal of DADT.
In late November, the Pentagon published a comprehensive report on the issues associated with a repeal of DADT. The report indicated that there was low risk of service disruptions because of repeal of the ban. Gates, fearing that Courts would force a sudden change, encouraged Congress to act quickly to repeal the law so that the military could carefully adjust. Democrats in Congress quickly scheduled hearings to consider repeal of the law. On December 3, the Joint Chiefs of Staff appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to testify about repeal. While the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Naval Operations, and Commandant of the Coast Guard said repeal would cause minimal disruption, heads of the Army, Air Force, and Marines opposed repeal because it would cause additional stress on combat focused forces during war.
On December 9, 2010, another filibuster prevented debate on the Defense Authorization Act during the lame duck session of Congress. Susan Collins of Maine voted in favor of cloture on the bill and Joe Manchin of West Virginia voted against cloture. Manchin stated that he did not support cloture because he had not yet consulted constituents on the issue, but said that the policy “probably should be repealed in the near future”.
U.S. Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins introduced bill S.4022 on December 9, 2010, in reaction to the failure to open discussion on the Defense Authorization Act. It includes the policy-related portions of the Defense Authorization Act which are considered by Lieberman and Collins as more likely to pass as a stand-alone bill. The Washington Post compared it to a Hail Mary pass. The stand-alone bill H.R. 6520 was sponsored by Patrick Murphy and passed the House of Representatives via H.R. 2965 in a vote of 250 to 175 on December 15, 2010.
On December 18, 2010, the Senate voted to end debate on S.4023, the Senate’s bill identical to H.R.2965, via a cloture vote of 63–33. Prior to the vote, Sen. Lieberman gave the final argument in favor of repealing DADT and Sen. McCain argued against repeal. The final Senate vote was held later that same day, with the measure passing by a vote of 65–31.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates released a statement following the vote indicating that the planning for implementation of a policy repeal would begin right away, led by Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford L. Stanley, and would continue until Gates certified that conditions were met for orderly repeal of the policy.
President Obama signed the repeal into law on December 22, 2010.
Implementation
The repeal act established a process for winding down the DADT policy. The President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were required to certify in writing that they had reviewed the Pentagon’s report on the effects of DADT repeal, that the appropriate regulations had been reviewed and drafted and that implementation of repeal regulations “is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces”. Once certification was given, a 60-day waiting period would begin before DADT was formally repealed.
Representative Duncan D. Hunter announced plans in January 2011 to introduce a bill designed to delay DADT repeal. Had his bill been adopted, all of the chiefs of the armed services would have needed to submit the certification at the time required only of the President, Defense Secretary and Joint Chiefs Chairman.
US Navy LT Gary Ross married Dan Swezy, becoming the first same-sex military couple to legally marry in the United States.
In January 2011, Pentagon officials stated that the training process to prepare troops for the repeal would begin in February and would proceed quickly, though they suggested that it might not be completed in 2011.[78] In May 2011, the US Army reprimanded three colonels for performing a skit in March 2011 at a function at Yongsan Garrison, South Korea that mocked the repeal.
While waiting for certification, several service members were discharged at their own insistence until a July 6 ruling from a federal appeals court barred further enforcement of the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members,which the military promptly did.
President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent the certification required by the Repeal Act to Congress on July 22, 2011, setting the end of DADT for September 20, 2011. The moment the repeal took effect, US Navy LT Gary Ross married his 11 1/2 year same-sex partner Dan Swezy, becoming the first same-sex military couple to legally marry in the United States. A Pentagon spokesman said that servicemembers discharged under DADT will be able to re-apply to rejoin the military then. On September 30, 2011, the Department of Defense issued Change 3 to DoD Instruction 1332.14, deleting “homosexual conduct” as a ground for administrative separation and thus making the repeal of DADT more fully meaningful.
Public opinion
Protest in New York by Soulforce, a civil rights group.
According to a December 2010 Washington Post–ABC News poll 77 percent of Americans say gays and lesbians who publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be able to serve in the military. That number showed little change from polls over the two years, but represents the highest level of support in a Post-ABC poll. The support also cuts across partisan and ideological lines, with majorities of Democrats (86%), Republicans (74%), independents (74%), liberals (92%), conservatives (67%), white evangelical Protestants (70%) and non-religious (84%) in favor of homosexuals’ serving openly.
A November 2010 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 58 percent of the American public favors permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the military, while less than half that number (27 percent) are opposed.[86] According to a November 2010 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll 72% of adult Americans favor permitting people who are openly gay or lesbian to serve in the military, while 23 % oppose it. “The main difference between the CNN poll and the Pew poll is in the number of respondents who told pollsters that they didn’t have an opinion on this topic – 16 percent in the Pew poll compared to only five percent in the CNN survey,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “The two polls report virtually the same number who say they oppose gays serving openly in the military, which suggests that there are some people who favor that change in policy but for some reason were reluctant to admit that to the Pew interviewers. That happens occasionally on topics where moral issues and equal-treatment issues intersect.”
A February 2010 Quinnipiac University national poll shows 57% of American voters favor gays serving openly, compared to 36% opposed, and 66% say the current policy of not allowing openly gay personnel to serve is discrimination, opposed to 31% who see no discrimination. A CBS News/New York Times national poll done at the same time shows 58% of Americans favor gays serving openly, compared to 28% opposed.
Military personnel opinion
In 1993, Comdr. Craig Quigley, then a Navy spokesman, said, “Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous. If homosexuals are allowed to declare their sexual orientation openly heterosexuals who showered with gay men would have an ‘uncomfortable feeling of someone watching.'”
A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 26% were in favor of gays serving in the military, 37% were opposed, while 37% expressed no preference or were unsure. Of the respondents who had experience with gay people in their unit, 6% said their presence had a positive impact on their personal morale, 66% said no impact, and 28% said negative impact. Likewise, regarding overall unit morale, 3% said positive impact, 64% no impact, and 27% negative impact. As for respondents uncertain whether they had served with gay personnel, 2% thought gays would have a positive effect on personal morale, while 29% thought that they would have no impact and 48% thought that they would have a negative effect. Likewise, regarding overall unit morale, 2% thought that gays would have a positive effect on overall unit morale, 26% thought they would have no effect, and 58% thought they would have a negative effect. More generally, 73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili (Ret.) and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen spoke against the policy publicly in January 2007: “I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces,” General Shalikashvili wrote. “Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.”
In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy, citing evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans. On November 17, 2008, 104 retired generals and admirals signed a similar statement.
On May 4, 2008, while Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen addressed the graduating cadets at West Point, a cadet asked what would happen if the next administration were supportive of legislation allowing gays to serve openly. Mullen responded, “Congress, and not the military, is responsible for [DADT].” Previously, during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2007, Mullen told lawmakers, “I really think it is for the American people to come forward, really through this body, to both debate that policy and make changes, if that’s appropriate.” He went on to say, “I’d love to have Congress make its own decisions” with respect to considering repeal.
In an interview on CNN’s State of the Union broadcast on July 5, 2009, Colin Powell said he thought that the policy was “correct for the time” but that “sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country, and therefore I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed.” In the same program, Admiral Mullen said the policy would continue to be implemented until the law was repealed, and that his advice was to “move in a measured way… At a time when we’re fighting two conflicts there is a great deal of pressure on our forces and their families.”
Several gay servicemembers have written novels and nonfiction works about life in the military under DADT. In 2005, Rich Merritt released his memoir Secrets of a Gay Marine Porn Star, and in 2008 Brett Edward Stout released his first novel, Sugar-Baby Bridge. Openly gay servicemember Dan Choi, a founder of West Point‘s LBGT group Knights Out, made an appearance on the web-based documentary series In Their Boots, criticizing the U.S. military’s neglect of servicemembers’ families. As a linguist, Choi was among 59 gay Arabic speakers discharged by the military, along with 9 gay Farsi speakers discharged by the military up to June 2009, despite a shortage of translators for these languages.
In September 2009, Air Force Colonel Om Prakash sharply criticized the policy in an article published in Joint Force Quarterly. He argued that it is unsound for several reasons, including the complete lack of any scientific basis for the proposition that unit cohesion is compromised by the presence of openly gay personnel. The article won the Secretary of Defense National Security Essay competition for 2009. Speaking in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 2, 2010, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen denounced the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.
In November 2010, the Defense Department published a comprehensive report on the effects of repeal. The report included the results of a survey of military personnel on bases throughout the United States and overseas, including 400,000 servicemembers and 150,000 military spouses. Overall, 70 percent of military personnel thought that integrating gays into the military would be positive, mixed, or of no consequence. However, 60 percent of personnel in the Marine Corps and combat specialties said that repealing the ban would be negative.
Scholars
In 1993, Gregory M. Herek, associate research psychologist at the University of California at Davis and an authority on public attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, testified before the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Representative Ron Dellums. Testifying on behalf of the American Psychological Association and five other national professional organizations (the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Nursing Association, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States), Herek stated “My written testimony to the Committee summarizes the results of an extensive review of the relevant published research from the social and behavioral sciences. That review is lengthy. However, I can summarize its conclusions in a few words: The research data show that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service, and there is nothing about heterosexuals that makes them inherently unable to work and live with gay people in close quarters.” In his testimony, Herek reviewed existing scientific research concerning issues of unit cohesion and effectiveness and the fitness of lesbians and gay men for military service. He concluded that straight personnel could overcome their prejudices and adapt to living and working in close quarters with gays. Furthermore, he said gays are as capable of military service as straight men and women are. “The assumption that heterosexuals cannot overcome their prejudices toward gay people is a mistaken one,” said Herek. Herek stated in 2008: “Today, as then (1993), the real question is not whether sexual minorities can be successfully integrated into the military. The social science data answered this question in the affirmative then, and do so even more clearly now. Rather, the issue is whether the United States is willing to repudiate its current practice of anti-gay discrimination and address the challenges associated with a new policy.”
The American Psychological Association has stated:
Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention (Belkin, 2003; Belkin & Bateman, 2003; Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996; MacCoun, 1996; National Defense Research Institute, 1993).
Comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments show that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness (Belkin & McNichol, 2000–2001; Gade, Segal, & Johnson, 1996; Koegel, 1996).
When openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces (Cammermeyer v. Aspin, 1994; Watkins v. United States Army, 1989/1990), there has been no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness.
The U.S. military is capable of integrating members of groups historically excluded from its ranks, as demonstrated by its success in reducing both racial and gender discrimination (Binkin & Bach, 1977; Binkin, Eitelberg, Schexnider, & Smith, 1982; Kauth & Landis, 1996; Landis, Hope, & Day, 1984; Thomas & Thomas, 1996).
On November 30, 2010 the Palm Center issued a joint statement from 30 professors and scholars (current and former academics at the Army War College, Naval Academy, West Point, Air Force Academy, Naval Post Graduate School, Naval War College, Air Command and Staff College and National Defense University as well as civilian universities including Harvard, Yale and Princeton) in response to the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Working Group Report on gays in the military. The statement read in part:
We write as scholars who have studied the military for decades. The release of the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Working Group report on gays in the military echoes more than 20 studies, including studies by military researchers, all of which reach the same conclusion: allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly will not harm the military. Unsurprisingly, the new Pentagon study, which is based on exhaustive research, confirms that the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” poses little if any risk to the armed forces. We hope that our collective statement underscores that the debate about the evidence is now officially over, and that the only remaining rationale for “don’t ask, don’t tell” is prejudice. In light of the report’s findings, this month’s debate in Congress is about one thing and one thing only: will prejudice continue to determine military policy or not?
Barack Obama
During his presidential campaign, Senator Barack Obama stated in an open letter that he “called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. During 2009, President Barack Obama advocated a policy change to allow gay personnel to serve openly in the armed forces, agreeing with General Shalikashvili and stating that the U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops expelled from the military, including language experts fluent in Arabic, because of DADT.
Nineteen days after his election, Obama’s advisers announced that plans to repeal the policy might be delayed until 2010, because Obama “first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus, and then present legislation to Congress.”
In May 2009, a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara concluded that the President could issue an Executive Order to suspend homosexual conduct discharges. Obama’s position was that he wanted Congress to change the law and not have the change come from executive action.
In July 2009, the White House and other Democrats reportedly pressured Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings to withdraw an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647) that would have prevented the military from using federal funds to expel gay servicemembers.
Obama’s Justice Department continued to defend the gay ban in court, citing a “traditional” duty to enforce and defend all laws. In court documents, government lawyers agreed with the ruling of the Federal Appeals Court in Boston that DADT is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.” An appeal of this case brought by Captain James E. Pietrangelo II, Pietrangelo v. Gates 08-824, was subsequently rejected in June 2009 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration asked that the Supreme Court turn down the challenge to the policy.
On the eve of the National Equality March in Washington, D.C., October 10, 2009, Barack Obama stated in a speech before the Human Rights Campaign that he would end the ban, but he offered no timetable.
In January 2010, the White House and congressional officials started work on repealing the ban by inserting language into the 2011 defense authorization bill.
During President Obama’s State of the Union Address on January 27, 2010, he claimed that he would work with Congress and the military to enact a repeal of the gay ban law. He had made similar statements during other speeches; however, his State of the Union speech was the first in which he definitively committed to repealing the law on a set timetable.
On November 30, 2010, the Department of Defense’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) on DADT repeal issued its formal report outlining a path to implementation of repeal in the Armed Forces. The United States Senate took up two days of hearings on December 2 and 3, 2010 to discuss the CRWG report and interview Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen, and each of the Service Chiefs. During these hearings, President Obama undertook a surprise trip to Afghanistan to visit deployed servicemembers and was, therefore, unable to provide any direct statement of support for the Senate hearings while they were in the media spotlight.
Letter of support for maintaining DADT
Citing a letter signed by “over one thousand former general and flag officers who have weighed in on this issue,” Senator John McCain of Arizona claimed that “we should pay attention and benefit from the experience and knowledge” of these officers. At the February 2, 2010 congressional hearing of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, McCain read directly from the letter, saying “We firmly believe that this law, which Congress passed to protect good order, discipline and morale in the unique environment of the armed forces, deserves continued support.” Servicemembers United, a veterans’ group opposed to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, issued a subsequent report on the letter’s legitimacy. They found that the claimed signees of the letter included officers who had no knowledge of their inclusion, who had refused to be included, and even one instance of a widow signing the letter in the guise of her husband, a former general who had died before the survey was published. The average age of the officers listed in the letter was 74, the oldest was 98, and Servicemembers United noted that “only a small fraction of these officers have even served in the military during the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ period, much less in the 21st century military.”
Activist groups
Several LGBT rights groups have lobbied, started campaigns and issued reports in an effort to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. In February 2010, the Human Rights Campaign launched its ‘Repeal DADT Now Campaign’ to mobilize grassroots support and target swing states. The Center for American Progress issued a report in March 2010 which claimed that eight specified changes must be made to the military’s internal regulations to ensure that a repeal is implemented smoothly. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is dedicated to ending discrimination against military personnel affected by Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Gay rights groups were divided in 2010 on whether a defense bill should pass if it did not include a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. The Center for Military Readiness and its founder Elaine Donnelly led opposition to repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Donnelly has argued that allowing gays to serve would degrade the quality of service.
Number of discharges
Since the policy was introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT. The number of discharges per fiscal year under DADT dropped sharply after the September 11 attacks and has remained comparatively low since. Discharges exceeded 600 every year until 2009. Unofficial statistics on the number of persons discharged per year follow:
| Year | Coast Guard | Marines | Navy | Army | Air Force | Total |
| 1994 | 0 | 36 | 258 | 136 | 187 | 617 |
| 1995 | 15 | 69 | 269 | 184 | 235 | 772 |
| 1996 | 12 | 60 | 315 | 199 | 284 | 870 |
| 1997 | 10 | 78 | 413 | 197 | 309 | 1,007 |
| 1998 | 14 | 77 | 345 | 312 | 415 | 1,163 |
| 1999 | 12 | 97 | 314 | 271 | 352 | 1,046 |
| 2000 | 19 | 114 | 358 | 573 | 177 | 1,241 |
| 2001 | 14 | 115 | 314 | 638 | 217 | 1,273 |
| 2002 | 29 | 109 | 218 | 429 | 121 | 906 |
| 2003* | – | – | – | – | – | 787 |
| 2004 | 15 | 59 | 177 | 325 | 92 | 668 |
| 2005 | 16 | 75 | 177 | 386 | 88 | 742 |
| 2006* | – | – | – | – | – | 623 |
| 2007* | – | – | – | – | – | 627 |
| 2008* | – | – | – | – | – | 619 |
| 2009* | – | – | – | – | – | 428 |
| 2010* | 11 | – | – | – | – | 261[134] |
| Total | ≥156 | ≥889 | ≥3,158 | ≥3,650 | ≥2,477 | 13,650 |
*Breakdown of discharges by service branch not available
- 1994–2003, 2006, 2007 from Servicemembers Legal Defense Network – Annual Gay Discharges Under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass”
- 2004–2005 from 365Gay.com – Military Discharging Two Soldiers Per Day For Being Gay Despite War Group Says[dead link]
- 2008 from Continued discharges anger ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ critics The Boston Globe, Bryan Bender – May 20, 2009
- 2000–2002 individual service numbers from Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, “Freedom to Serve”
- Not accurate numbers of discharges under DADT due to some soldiers not disclosing their discharge. These statistics are only from those who came forward to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
Financial impact of policy
In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office released estimates on the cost of the policy. The GAO reported at least $95.4 million in recruiting costs and at least $95.1 million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops discharged from 1994 through 2003, while noting that the true figures might be higher.
In February 2006, a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission including Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary during the Reagan administration, former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Clinton administration, and professors from the United States Military Academy at West Point concluded that figure should be closer to $363 million, including $14.3 million for “separation travel” once a servicemember is discharged, $17.8 million for training officers, $252.4 million for training enlistees and $79.3 million in recruiting costs. The commission report stated that the GAO did not take into account the value the military lost from the departures.
Chaplains and religious groups
Chaplain groups and religious organizations are taking various positions concerning the policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Some view that the policy must be withdrawn to make the military more inclusive. The Southern Baptist Convention is battling the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, warning that their endorsements for chaplains may be withdrawn if the repeal takes place. They take the position that allowing gay men and women to serve in the military without restriction will have a negative impact on the ability of chaplains who think homosexuality is a sin to speak freely regarding their religious beliefs. The Roman Catholic Church has called for the retention of the policy, but has no plans to withdraw its priests from serving as military chaplains. Sixty-five retired chaplains signed a letter opposing repeal, stating that repeal would make it impossible for chaplains whose faith teaches that same-sex behavior is immoral to minister to military servicemembers. Other religious organizations and agencies call the repeal of the policy a “non-event” or “non-issue” for chaplains, claiming that chaplains have always supported military service personnel, whether or not they agree with all their actions or beliefs.
ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don’t_ask,_don’t_tell#Letter_of_support_for_maintaining_DADT
I Am Who I Am 