Search

The article focuses on charges brought against gay Navy sailors in Newport, Rhode Island between 1919 and 1921 for same-sex acts. Topics include the accused men's lack of due process, how then Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) implemented the charges under Section A, O.A.S.N. (Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy), and how this constructed a national security state during World War I.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including politics, citizenship and gay men in United States' military.

How did gays in the military go from being characterized as dangerous perverts threatening the state to potential heroes fighting on behalf of the state? Numerous studies have identified various legal and political conditions that can account for resistance to this change. This article explores popular culture as a contributor to public understanding that, in turn, supported these political developments. Using the James Bond film series to track shifts in public understanding of gender and sexuality norms, I argue that such developments can be seen as a contributing factor leading to lifting the ban on gays in the military, an important step in a classic civil rights narrative in the United States in which the interests of a previously excluded minority group and the liberal state gradually converge, leading to greater political inclusion over time. I conclude by suggesting that popular culture analysis may also provide the basis for a more critical civil rights narrative that reveals persistent divergences between state and minority group interests, highlighting an ongoing basis for dissent from state power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the pros and cons of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), an official policy of the U.S. Department of Defense prohibiting the homosexual conduct in the armed forces. It discusses its legal challenges under U.S. President Barack Obama's administration of 2008, which later resulted in the deceasement of the policy. It analyzes the decisions of the Cook v. Rumsfeld, Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, and Witt v. Dep't of the Air Force for determining the downfall.

The authors investigate a gap in attitudes toward homosexuals in the U.S. military among a select group of people—American civilian undergraduates, Reserve Officer Training Corp (ROTC) cadets, and cadets at military academies. Using a subsample (N = 3057) of data from the Biannual Attitude Survey of Students (BASS), being a military academy cadet is associated with the strongest agreement for barring homosexuals from serving in the military, followed by ROTC cadets and civilians. These trends continue when controlling for respondents' sex and political affiliation—the two most significant predictors of agreeing to bar homosexuals from military service. A small reduction in agreement for barring was found among academy cadets over time. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on the constitutional implications of the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) rules in the U.S. military. Topics include the DADT Repeal Act's violation of the jurisdictional test in the U.S. House of representatives and the rules and regulations under the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The article focuses on the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) rules in the U.S. military. Topics include the implementation of DADT rules in 1993 and the civil rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) people in the U.S. Information is provided on the consequences of DADT on gay servicemembers between 1993 and 2010.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) rules in the U.S., the acceptance of gay and lesbian servicemembers in the U.S. military, and the legal policy rules surrounding the repeal.

The article focuses on openly gay and lesbian servicemembers in the U.S. military. Topics include the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) rules, a citizen's legal and constitutional right to serve in the U.S. military, and gay rights movements in the U.S. in 2011. The author discusses whether or not gay people should participate in military service in the U.S.

An article is presented that reports on the connection between war and minority rights, describing the ties between conflict and the development of civil rights and liberties. The article discusses how minority groups contribute to war efforts, noting historical examples related to women's suffrage and African American soldiers in World War II. Information is provided on the U.S. armed forces and the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy prohibiting gays from openly serving in the military, speaking to the moral and practical aspects of the repeal by President Barack Obama.

The article discusses the legal implications of the repeal of U.S. statute 10 U.S.C. § 654, known as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding homosexual military personnel. It is a critical response to the article “The Death of Military Justice,” by William J. Gregor, published in the journal's Autumn 2010 issue.

The article discusses the repeal of Section 654 of Title 10 US Code, commonly known as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy,” which prohibited openly gay persons from serving in the military. It argues that this will have unintended deleterious consequences, as Section 654 did not just apply to homosexuality, but also codified a more general set of principles involving the administration of military justice. These could be undermined by lawsuits as a result the repeal.

The article discusses the multiple benefits unavailable to the LGBT servicemembers' families in the U.S. It introduces the benefits given to legally recognized military families. It examines the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as well as the state laws designed to prevent the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, why the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" does not change the status quo without extra legislation, and the Department of Defense's (DOD) definition of the eligible dependents for the benefits. How the country situated its allies permitting open service to handle family benefits is also examined.

The article presents the author's perspectives on the prohibition of gays and lesbians from openly serving the military through the Don't Ask/Don't Tell (DADT) law in the U.S. The author states that the bonds that link members of the military are weakened by demanding gay and lesbian personnel to cover part of themselves from fellow soldiers. The author says that DADT really makes a space where military gays and lesbians interact with each other and make their own form of military gay identity.

U.S. policy banning openly gay and lesbian personnel from serving in its military rests on the belief that heterosexual discomfort with lesbian and gay service members in an integrated environment would degrade unit cohesion and readiness. To inform this policy, data from a 2006 survey of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are analyzed in this study. Views of these war veterans are consistent with prior surveys of military personnel showing declining support for the policy: from about 75 percent in 1993 to 40 percent in this survey. Among the demographic and military experience variables analyzed, comfort level with lesbian and gay people was the strongest correlate of attitudes toward the ban. War veterans indicated that the strongest argument against the ban is that sexual orientation is unrelated to job performance and that the strongest argument in favor of the ban is a projected negative impact on unit cohesion. However, analyses of these war veterans' ratings of unit cohesion and readiness revealed that knowing a gay or lesbian unit member is not uniquely associated with cohesion or readiness; instead, the quality of leaders, the quality of equipment, and the quality of training are the critical factors associated with unit cohesion and readiness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the concept of unit cohesion as proffered by the proponents to ban the homosexuals asserting their detrimental effects to military preparedness in the U.S. It details the experiences of foreign militaries in banning gay services pertinent to the effects in the military services as mandated in the "Don't Ask, Don't tell" policy. The traditional leadership tools by the military commanders are examined to strengthen and diminish the ill effects of gays in uniform

The article focuses on how a First Amendment framework to gay and lesbian rights may be applied in the U.S. military. It explores the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court concerning the military and the First Amendment which was established in the later quarter of the 20th century. It also discusses the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the service in which gay and lesbian service members are allowed to continue active duty as long as they keep their sexual orientation undisclosed.

This article asks what impact, if any, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy might have on the U.S. military's reputation. Original empirical research is presented to suggest that the policy harms the military's reputation in four ways: the policy is inconsistent with public opinion, it prompts many journalists to criticize the armed forces while attracting almost no favorable media coverage, it provides a vehicle for antimilitary protesters to portray military culture as conflicting with widely accepted civilian values, and it is inconsistent with the views of junior enlisted service members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the impact of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell military policy on the families of gay members of the U.S. military. It is stated that the policy affects more than 65,000 gay military personnel who are serving in military service and one million gay veterans who have served. It is emphasized that the impact attacks emotionally, financially and legally the lives of the partners and children of gay service members. The article reiterates how the policy undermines both national security, as well as the fundamental premise in the country.

Proposes the creation of inclusive commands for gay and non-gay soldiers in the U.S. military. Overview of how the inclusive command would deliver the benefits of amelioration, demonstration, and realignment; Brief history of exclusion and integration in the U.S. military, with focus on women and racial minorities; Approach of the inclusive command in integrating sexual minorities into the military; Problems related to the implementation of the inclusive command.

The article explores the attitudes of the American public toward women and issues involving sexual orientation in the military. World War II was an important historical moment in which, for the first time, women were allowed to be part of the military. In 1940, 45 percent of the public favored drafting women and training them for jobs in wartime. Between 1941 and 1943, several military female units were created. In March 1979, 43 percent stated that women should be required to participate in the draft as well as men, and 50 percent opposed this, while support increased 6-11 percentage points through 1998. In 1979, among those who have agreed that women should be drafted, the role of a woman in the military did not necessarily mean combat. Men and women generally agree that there is discrimination against women in obtaining top jobs in the military. The modest acceptance regarding homosexuals in the military, observed from the late 1970s to mid-1990s, increased further through May 2001. Overall, since the late 1970s, there has been a positive movement in the public's attitudes toward the role of homosexuals in the military. With regard to widely debated public policy, support for the do not ask, do not tell plan fluctuated from 1993 to 1999.

Focuses on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on cases concerning the prohibition of homosexuals in the British Armed Forces. Details on the claims of the armies against the British Armed Forces; Background of the armies; Conclusion of the Court on violation of the armies' right to respect for the private lives of applicants; Comments on the Court's decision.

Focuses on the issue of homosexuals serving in the United States military. Question of whether open integration of gays and lesbians would disrupt combat effectiveness or unit cohesion while simultaneously advancing civil rights; The historical and social structural context within which military personnel policy evolves; The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy; Differences between civilian and military organizations.

This study examines Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann's spiral of silence theory in terms of the controversial issue of whether homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military. The study tests the theory's hypotheses in light of a content analysis of the media's treatment of the issue. The findings offer tentative and qualified support for Noelle-Neumann's theoretical propositions about the relationship between individuals' perceptions of the issue and the media's tenor of the issue. The study departs from previous research by examining the influence of the media at different stages in the spiral of silence model. Results suggest that the mass media may have separate but similar effects on perceptions of majority opinion and personal opinions. Results further reveal that, in certain situations, individuals who feel that their position is beginning to lose public support may feel compelled to voice their opinions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the visibility factor associated with the assimilationist bias in equal protection and examines the United States military's don't ask, don't tell policy. Definition of equal protection immutability and visibility; Equal protection's assimilationist bias; Discussion on the don't ask, don't tell policy concerning gays.

Examines the United States military policy toward homosexuals. Overview of the sources of military effectivenss; Army's policies and attitudes toward unit cohesion; Social sciences that challenges the proposition that unit cohesion is critical to military effectiveness; Factors that influence a military's performance; Rationale for excluding open homosexuals from the armed forces.

Discusses the First Amendment and equal protection policy for gays in the military in the `Holmes v. California Army National Guard' case in the United States. Decision of the Ninth Circuit on the case; Enactment of the `don't ask, don't tell' policy in 1993; Provisions of the `statement prong' of the policy.

Discusses androcentrism and institutional reform in the military. Need to expose androcentism as a strategy for change; Courts' deference toward military policy.

Chronicles the policy of the military to exclude homosexuals from serving in the armed forces. Analyses of the arguments used by the armed forces in its policy of excluding homosexuals; Dealing with homosexual acts and antihomosexual harassment.

This article deals with the controversies surrounding the ban of homosexuals from military service in the U.S. Uniformed opposition to allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the country's armed forces is rooted in a homophobia that is visceral and pervasive. To the senior officers who dominate the services, the whole gay thing is deeply threatening and repugnant. For some in uniform, opposition to demands for acceptance of homosexuals includes a moral component, the religious belief that homosexual relations are sinful, encouraging admirers to see the armed services as bastions of self-restraint and traditional virtue in a society otherwise gone bonkers over sex.

This article focuses on the exclusionary policy of the U.S. Department of Defense banning openly homosexual people from military service. The official policy of excluding homosexuals might reinforce and justify negative attitudes and stereotypes regarding gays. Similarly, any policy that does not recognize and protect the rights of gays to privacy and to non-discrimination because of sexual orientation is likely to reinforce and justify existing attitudes and stereotypes as well as to create an environment of distrust and suspicion toward gays in the military.

This article focuses on the issues involved in the gay ban from the United States military. Within the Democratic Party, Senator Sam Nunn, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, publicly opposed President Bill Clinton's decision to lift the gay ban, insisting that no final decision should be made without a full congressional inquiry into the matter, which he was prepared to lead. His willingness to battle the president on this issue, some have suggested, stems in part from his pique at not being appointed to a major cabinet post and not being consulted adequately on military matters by Clinton's transition team. This claim casts no doubt on Nunn's sincerity in opposing Clinton's original proposal to lift the ban, but it speaks to the choice of political weapons Nunn has employed.