This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Jan. 6, 2011 - Those who know me would scoff at the notion that I am politically correct. I'm a big fan of what Harry Truman called "plain speaking," and thus tend to communicate in frank language with little regard for the delicate sensibilities of the fashionably effete. It does not upset me, for instance, that the NFL franchise representing our nation's capital is named the "Redskins." Mea culpa.
My written commentary is marginally restrained by the dual influences of an editor with a heightened sense of propriety and a genuine desire on my part not to needlessly offend. Nevertheless, it occasionally manages to provoke irate responses from certain quarters.
And that brings me to the recent demise of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military.
I, for one, liked don't ask, don't tell if for no other reason than it encouraged people to keep their private lives to themselves. That genteel custom allowed one to maintain public decency while enjoying the thrill of intimacy in private. Alas, in the social networking universe of Facebook and tweets, privacy has gone the way of the hula hoop and we are left baring our souls to society at large.
Now that Congress has abolished don't ask, don't tell, homosexuals will soon be able to serve openly in the armed forces. This prospect entails ambiguities that the brass will have to resolve before the policy can be implemented.
On the one hand, it's clear that homosexuals have soldiered throughout history. Alexander the Great, for instance, is said to have encouraged homosexuality among his troops because he believed they would fight more ferociously in defense of their lovers.
Besides, simple fairness would argue for inclusion. If one believes, as I do, that sexual orientation is an inborn trait, then it follows that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of having blue eyes or being predisposed to left-handedness. As all citizens have an equal stake in the survival of the republic, each has an equal interest in its common defense.
During my tenure with the St. Louis Police Department, I worked with cops I knew to be homosexual. Though the issue was not discussed openly, I can honestly say that their on-duty performance was no different than that of their heterosexual counterparts. At the end of our shift, we all went our separate ways. In the military, however, the troops live together, segregated by sex.
The reason male and female GI's don't shower together is rather obvious. But what of the openly homosexual GI sharing the showers with a room full of naked young men? To the extent that homosexuality is not a vice, it is also not a virtue. Why would we expect nature to take its course in first scenario but not in the latter?
Imagine for a moment that I found myself in the shower room with, say, the Dallas Cowboys' cheerleaders. It's a fair bet that most of the girls would not be unduly interested in a man old enough to be their father. But could you really blame them for feeling uncomfortable, knowing that there was some dude in the corner who might be enjoying the view?
Living together in close quarters is difficult enough without introducing sexual tension into the mix. And unit cohesion is a vital element of military success. Abolishing don't ask, don't tell poses difficult challenges for all involved. ...
M.W.Guzy is a retired St. Louis cop who currently works for the city Sheriff's Department. His column appears weekly in the Beacon.