• Maintenance of Proper Military Discipline, Order and Morale. Gen. Colin Powell has spoken of the apprehension and resentment most heterosexual would feel if forced to occupy close quarters and bathing facilities with people who may view them as potential sex objects. The military is not a private corporation, and choosing roommates and showermates is often not a military person's option. Some argue that "closet" homosexuals are already in the military, and fraternization-harassment regulations would still be in effect to curtail such problems if gays were openly admitted. We answer: Why hasn't the military already mandated "unisex" bathrooms and male/female roommates as standard policy? Obviously, the futility of maintaining any semblance of dignified professionalism given such an environment is a reasonable consideration "homosexual rights" advocates choose to ignore. Columnist Stephen Chapman has observed, comparing the experience of the military with women in the Gulf War with the likely effect of gays in the military (Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, Feb. 9, 1993, p. B5:

"A Roper survey found that two-thirds of the personnel in coed units serving in the Gulf War said there was sexual activity between men and women in their unit -- in violation of regulations. Most of them said it damaged morale. What lessons can be found here for the matter of admitting gays [to the military]? Perhaps the most obvious is that if gays are admitted, there will be homosexual liaisons within the ranks. It's easy to say you can admit gays and ban this sort of conduct, but banning it won't prevent it. If heterosexual acts harm morale, homosexual acts are likely to hurt it in spades. Another is that if homosexuals don't perform as well as heterosexuals, or get promoted at the same rate, there will be pressure to change the performance standards [as in the case of women] and to establish unwritten quotas for promotion."

In a footnote to his recent Yale Law Journal article (op. cit., footnote 221, pp. 377-378), avowed gay legal scholar William Eskridge presents just such a possibility: "Because homosocial environments such as the military contain concentrated numbers of potential sexual partners, search costs for same-sex partners will tend to decline. The number of potential partners is also somewhat higher than for the population as a whole, because the higher search costs for different-sex partners will impel more `opportunistic homosexuals' to accept same-sex partners instead. As a consequence, beisexuals, gay men, and lesbians might be expected to gravitate toward the military in disproportionate numbers."

• The "Security Risk" Question. The DOD has always recognized the possibility of homosexuals being blackmailed or otherwise disgraced because of their behavior. Critics dismiss this argument, sometimes citing a report showing that only six of 130 espionage cases involving homosexuals have resulted in reports of blackmail. This proves, they say, that homosexuals are equally capable of handling positions of trust. Of course, gay militants say, any potential for blackmail would be eliminated were the military to relax its constraints and let servicemen and women "out of the closet."

Second, as the above-cited case of Pete Williams demonstrates, homosexuals may still not "come out of the closet" even if they are immune from discharge. Williams was a civil servant, not a serviceman. His job was not in jeopardy even had he admitted practicing homosexuality. Williams kept his homosexuality a secret for other-than- employment reasons. How many gays do the same despite having sympathetic employers? How many would continue to do so in the military -- and be tempted to pay a high price for their secrecy?

• Health Risks Associated with Homosexuality. In the opinion of the military, the sexual practices commonly associated with homosexuality mandate a high risk of AIDS (and other disease) exposure and transmission. War is, of course, a bloody business. AIDS- tainted blood splashing into cuts or abrasions has been conclusively implicated in the spread of AIDS. As U.S. Rep. William Dannemeyer has observed: "What wounded soldier in his right mind is going to allow blood to be transferred into his system from a guy who just the night before had anonymous sex encounters with other men? A better question is, what right does society have to impose that kind of risk on those asked to defend our country?"

• A Higher Moral and Behavioral Standard. Throughout history, members of the U.S. Armed Services have consistently been held to a higher moral and behavioral standard than society at large. In 1990, when several Air Force Academy cadets were discovered performing vulgar and indecent acts in their dormitory, major national news coverage resulted. Doubtless, a similar incident would have received little attention if it had taken place at a state university?

Although overlooked by nearly every other court in the nation, the military still punishes the act of adultery. The fact remains that American citizens rightfully expect more from America's military in the way of character than from most civilian professions. Whether gay extremists like it or not, a vast majority of American citizens, when confronted with acts like homosexual anal penetration, seminal and fecal ingestion, anal "fisting" and "water sports" are sickened by such behavior, which, some research has shown, are common in the homosexual lifestyle. Should the military allow such behavior among members in the ranks merely because of the intimidation of a vociferous and bogus pseudo-minority?

Many members of the U.S. Armed Forces have probably never considered until now the prospect of being forced to serve with openly admitting homosexuals. Should gay activist efforts to overturn DOD policy succeed, military members who oppose homosexuality on conscientious grounds must be prepared to hold their tongues or face disciplinary procedures currently reserved for racial or gender discrimination. Furthermore, military leadership must consider the possible limitations that may be placed on officers regarding disciplinary actions. Again, how will "sexual orientation" make itself known (and establish for certain its identity) in the military workplace? Will officers be prohibited from taking normal disciplinary actions against open homosexual behavior? Unless all homosexuals in the military take, and keep, a vow not to practice or promote homosexual behavior, these considerations will certainly become volatile issues in the arena of military discipline.

Furthermore, how would command decisions be affected by the close proximity in battle of homosexual lovers? What potential would exist for sexual harassment of service persons of inferior rank by homosexual superiors of the same gender? Would these sorts of inevitable conflicts and dilemmas be conducive to the most effective accomplishment of the military's mission? In reference to such questions, economist Thomas Sowell has written:

"...Does anyone expect either military discipline or morale to be unaffected [by the admission of avowed gays in the military]? Without discipline and morale, what is a military unit but a disaffected mob? We need not limit ourselves to speculation. As homosexuality has become increasingly accepted on many of our leading college campuses, gays have become another privileged class.

"Students have been punished merely for daring to criticize the homosexual lifestyle. On some college campuses, men's toilets have become rendezvous centers for homosexual activity to such an extent that gay activists have published annually updated guides to the best places for such encounters.

"Toilets in libraries at Georgetown University, Howard University and the University of Maryland, for example, have made that list. Holes have been drilled in the toilet stalls to facilitate anonymous homosexual activity from Dartmouth to Georgetown to the University of Florida and the University of California at San Diego.

"Concentrations of young males in institutions that accept homosexuality have proven to be magnets for gays. Toilets at the University of Florida have attracted gay men from as far as 40 miles away. Are we now to turn the military into another concentration of young males in an institution that accepts homosexuality?

"When you can't even go to the toilet without being a witness to or a target of homosexual activity, we are no longer talking about how someone does his individual job. Can anyone imagine how soldiers, Marines or paratroopers are going to react to such situations?"

• Personal and Spousal Benefits. Would the awarding of "spousal" or "domestic partnership" benefits become mandatory for sexual partners of gay service persons (or, because of the extraordinary benefits extended to these single persons, would such benefits also have to be extended to single heterosexual relationships as well)? What would be the effects on the spousal benefit structure of all the military services of admitting freely-acknowledged homosexuals into the military? No one knows for sure.
• Lastly, and above all, unity of purpose and action within the ranks is essential to accomplishing the mission of America's armed services. It is no accident that military training, from the first days of "basic," is focused on the development of military personnel as a coordinated fighting unit. It is difficult to see how the systematic, conscious introduction and promotion of the profound behaviorally and psychologically based "open diversity" of homosexually "oriented" persons can help but undermine the crucial unity of purpose, attitudeand action -- the vital esprit de corps needed to accomplish the mission of the effective military defense of America.

Likewise, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy being promoted by both President Clinton and Congress, which would allow "non-sexually-active" gays in the military, is not likely to remain unassaulted by gay militants who insist that their behavior be aceepted in the military as well as their "status" or "orientation." Numerous lawsuits attempting full admission of open, sexually-active homosexuals are already "in the works."

We hold that it would be irresponsible and negligent indeed not to take the above considerations (together with numerous others this analysis raises, including the complete lack of either Constitutional or rational basis for any such concept as "gay rights") into careful account before summarily or hastily overruling current DOD policy regarding "sexual orientation."

[Note: For much of this analysis, I am deeply indebted to former military officer, Lane Cohee (Captain, USAF, Ret.)]