|
Published 2 August 1993 in the News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
Rooming with gays changed soldier's mind
There was a time when I would have argued for lifting the ban. Prior to joining the Army, I had worked with and had gone to school with homosexuals with no real problems. As an "enlightened" college boy, I arrogantly assumed my own moral superiority and considered the ban to be ignorant, narrow-minded bigotry. But theory and practice are often very different.
During the second year of my enlistment, I and other soldiers began to suspect that two of my roommates were having a homosexual affair. I shed my doubts the night I discovered them asleep in the same bunk. I informed our superiors of the situation, but it was determined that nothing could be done as it was my word against theirs. I wanted to move into another room, but there was no extra space. I was forced to sleep and get dressed in a room with two practicing homosexuals.
My roommates' affair disrupted our unit's normal rhythms and violated the feeling of trust.
Barracks life is highly communal, and privacy is very limited, but these conditions foster the camaraderie and the unit cohesion that is vital to the proper functioning of a combat-ready force. The outrage expressed by veterans such as myself is well justified. We sacrificed part of our lives and part of ourselves by serving in our country's armed forces. We gave up far too much to stand by idly while those who "loathe the military" attempt to destroy that which we made part of ourselves, that which we will always love. The ban must be maintained.
James M. Wallace
Greensboro
Original unedited Letter to the Editor as submitted to the News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
To the Editor:
On July 19, 1987, while stationed in Germany, I returned to my room to find two of my roommates in bed together.
On July 19, 1993, in a perversely ironic act, Bill Clinton made the first step in lifting the ban against military service by open homosexuals.
There was a time when I would have argued for lifting the ban. Prior to joining the Army, I had worked with and had gone to school with homosexuals with no real problems. As an "enlightened" college boy, I arrogantly assumed my own moral superiority and considered the ban to be ignorant, narrow-minded bigotry. But theory and practice are often very different, and I received my comeuppance in the fullness of time.
During the second year of my enlistment, I and other soldiers began to suspect that two of my roommates were having a homosexual affair. They were keeping it out of the barracks, so no one was certain. I shed my doubts the night I discovered them asleep in the same bunk. I informed our superiors of the situation, but it was determined that nothing could be done as it was my word against theirs. I wanted to move into another room, but there was no extra space. I was forced to sleep and get dressed in a room with two practicing homosexuals, and they made a point of making my life more miserable than it already was.
Military units are worse than small towns; everyone was aware of the situation. My roommates' affair disrupted our unit's normal rhythms and violated the feeling of trust. I learned firsthand that the presence of known homosexuals is disruptive to the good order and discipline of military units and has a negative impact on unit effectiveness.
Barracks life is highly communal, and privacy is very limited, but these conditions foster the camaraderie and the unit cohesion that is vital to the proper functioning of a combat-ready force. One disrupts the process at the risk of needlessly lost lives.
The outrage expressed by veterans such as myself is well justified. We sacrificed part of our lives and part of ourselves by serving in our country's armed forces. We gave up far too much to stand by idly while those who "loathe the military" attempt to destroy that which we made part of ourselves, that which we will always love. The ban must be maintained.
James M. Wallace
| 
