Doug/Sir . . . first of all, I want you to know that you are missed in class. Your perspective was always so thoughtfully rendered from your experiences and was refreshing and genuine. You always made me think. I hope all is well.
Now, as one military vet to another (if a Marine can grant such to a fly-boy), I question that the homosexual prohibition within our ranks has its most effective argument on the grounds of morality. I stress that this argument has no effect WITHIN the ranks. I will agree that the issue has moral relevance on the civilian side. I do not object just for what could be seen as the fun of drawing up a hair-splitting argument. I think this distinction is very important and it consequentially strikes at the notion you present that our military "should be a reflection of society, not a reflection of itself."
I feel the need to address the latter idea of what the military reflects, or "should reflect," in order to clear up our main issue of homosexuality. To begin, the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice) does not follow, and in fact directly contradicts, the Constitution of our United States where it extends deeply into regulating human behavior and infringes upon those enumerated "certain unalienable rights" of its military members. The UCMJ regulates, well basically everything possible in human conduct, as you know: Article 125 prohibits the act of sodomy, even with a consensual spouse; Article 101 prohibits the "improper use of countersign" (a password used in the relief of sentries/guards on post); Article 134 is the famous "General Article," or the "catch all" article, which is phrased intentionally vague so as to afford superior ranks, and military prosecutors, an almost infinite, though discretionary, power to punitively enforce the "good order and discipline [of] the armed forces, [and] all conduct of a nature [that could] bring discredit upon the armed forces."
THE UCMJ IN ITS ENTIRETY:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/ucmj19970615.htm
Stringent? Yes. Necessary? There is no other way to conduct the serious task of disciplining and training a force, to the unimaginable degree that is necessary, in order to protect the citizens of our modern nation. The protectors of such a nation must be held accountable to an absolute and swift power, and a law, that reflects the nature of the war they must always anticipate. Military members necessarily stand outside the jewel of society that they protect; They are not civilians, and their ranks should not, as they necessarily do not, reflect the society of civilians that they protect.
Now for a fellow Marine, the scenario to follow would evoke an easy and immediate response-- I would think that someone who has never served would also easily be able to see the result of the following hypothetical(s). But, just to make sure I wasn't engaging in Jar-Headish thinking, I just got off the phone with my brother (who is a Captain in the Airforce) and he raised every objection I had to this idea of the military before I even got to raise them to him myself.
Imagine first: that "our military" were an actual "reflection of its society" where, it were composed of some approximation (to be fair) of an accurate socio-economic cross-section of its peoples. Would we force, or just permit, certain people unable to accomplish Marine training, etc., through the process just to have an accurate representation of the populace? Say, more reasonably, that the military were an accurate reflection of our society where its members could engage their superiors with rational free speech. What would happen to the "instant willingness for obedience to orders?" The necessary, instant, unquestioning obedience to orders? Ok, to be fair and charitable, what if all that was meant is that our military should reflect our society in that our society should have input on the values upheld within our military? Or maybe that our military should honorably reflect the moral justification for its existence and that of the nation it represents. To both of the last suggestions, in this context, I say: "Why ‘should’ one be made to reflect the other?" The polis, even if it found itself sufficiently equipped and educated to usefully inform its military, ought not ever even flirt with the idea that the practice of its own moral sentiment and liberty should find a like use when applied to understand the operations of the military or when installed into the actual operations of the military.
The moral liberties exercised within society, especially those of moral opining, do not make sense when applied to describe the nature of the military and would only serve to bog the efficient function of a properly constructed military. A moral code lacks empirical specificity. The definite (very Kantian) structure of an ethical demand points to a simple and singular source for its authority: the law/orders are to be immediately executed without interpretation or variation. All deviations have exact, known, and usually extreme consequences as a deterrent. A moral cannot perform the same function. A moral, at some point—and definitely at the point where the pressure to act or not has peaked, begs the question: “From where does this moral imperative gain its authority over me and my action?” An ethic points only to its authority in the law and ends consideration where punishment is sufficient. That a military “ought to” reflect anything outside the consideration of what composition is most necessary for it to serve in the defense of its nation, is an extraneous, irrelevant and dangerous moral add-on to a military system that would fail if its operations were made to have something to do with the vacillations inherent in moral interpretation.
Even though the values of a society may, indeed, end up being reflected in its military, this is the sum result of the values expressed of its military members in the performance of their black and white adherence to military duty. There is no moral component to consider. The Roman armies who openly celebrated the practice of homosexuality in their ranks, and who enjoyed successes on the battlefield, can be seen as successfully constructed militaries composed of a majority who valued “man-man” love. And though it may not be a pure comparison of armies and cultures, it is clear that no metaphysical moral proclamation is needed from any society so that it may impose its own reflection for some supposed betterment of its armed force. The question: Should homosexuals be allowed in the modern American military? Is answered in the playing out of the following, morally neutral, questions: Will the American military community be able accommodate open homosexuality into the necessity of its purpose? and Will the open admission of homosexuals into the American military add to or detract from its overall efficiency of purpose? Neither civilian society, nor any imposition of its morality will be able to answer these questions.
To everyone in our class: Comments/counter-arguements/points of clarification/general thoughts? Though I do argue this separation, I am a civilian now and do not wish to appear as saying that I only invite, or see as relevant, comments and ideas from those who have served, etc. I am interested, as I pull heavy from my experiences in the Marine Corps, to have input from those with different (hopefully very different) experiences and perspectives. Thanks.
