Gays in the Military: A New Look at the Data

Gays in the Military: A New Look at the Data

by

RADM Alan M. Steinman, USPHS / USCG (Ret)

Last December, the Michael D. Palm Center and Zogby International published the results of a poll of Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans concerning gays in the military. The poll was extremely significant because it was the first time a scientifically valid opinion survey of current military combat troops was conducted on this issue. The entire study can be found on the Palm Center website:

http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/dont_ask_dont_tell_isnt_working_survey_reveals_shift_in_military_attitudes

When looking at the opinions of these troops, it is important to remember that the entire basis of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) law was founded on the assumption that the known presence of gay troops would be so distasteful and disruptive to straight service members that unit morale and unit cohesion would suffer, and therefore combat readiness would be degraded. The Palm Center / Zogby Poll didn’t query stateside military members or those who served in the military a decade or more ago; the poll focused exclusively on troops who were either in combat in these two current wars or directly involved in support roles for the combat troops.

A brief summary of the demographics of the poll respondents is as follows:

*545 U.S. Military personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations).

*65% active duty; 16% veterans; 6% mobilized Reserve/Guard; 13% non-mobilized Reserve/Guard

*46% Army; 29% Air Force; 17% Navy; 7% Marines; 1% Coast Guard

*66% enlisted; 31% O1-O8; 3% warrant officers

*29% combat; 32% combat support; 18% combat service support; 21% other or unsure

The poll asked a large number of questions on different issues. But most directly, the issue of known gays serving alongside their straight counterparts was addressed in the following three questions:

*Do you know for certain that someone is gay or lesbian in your unit?

Yes	No	Not Sure
23%	61%	17%

*Was the presence of gays or lesbians in the unit well-known by others (answered by those indicating “yes” to the above question)?

Yes	No	Not Sure
55%	25%	21%

*In your unit are there people you suspect are gay or lesbian, but don’t know for sure?

Yes	No	Not Sure
45%	31%	25%

From the above responses, it is clear that a large majority of these servicemen and women (68%) either knew for certain or suspected there were gays or lesbians in their own unit. And that this fact was widely known by other members of the unit. These results totally destroy the foundation for the DADT. The known and suspected gays weren’t just somewhere in the military; they were right there in the same unit with their straight peers. So obviously unit morale, unit cohesion and combat readiness are not degraded by the known presence of gays and lesbians (unless one thinks that our current military is suffering these problems, and certainly no one has stated our troops aren’t doing their jobs well).

Another issue often cited by those opposing gays serving openly in the military is the assumed discomfort of straight service men and women if gays were known to be present in the close quarters of most military operations. Colloquially this is often referred to as “the shower issue,” but it applies not only to showers but to barracks, tents, hooches, foxholes, ship berthing, submarines – basically any place where “privacy” is compromised. The poll asked the following question:

*Personally, how comfortable are you in the presence of gays and lesbians?

Comfortable	Uncomfortable	Not Sure
73%	19%	8%

Obviously the current crop of military men and women don’t seem to have a problem working with gays and lesbians. So much for the “shower issue”!

The poll results, however, did not contain only good news for gays and lesbians serving openly. The following question, often seized upon by opponents of replacing DADT with a policy of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, directly addressed gays serving openly:

*Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?

Agree	Neutral or Not Sure	Disagree
26%	37%	37%

So even though the majority of troops either knew or suspected there were gay members of their own unit, and nearly three-quarters of them were personally comfortable working with gays and lesbians, the troops were split on whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve honestly.

Therein lies an interesting finding in the poll data. It is not enough simply to look at the overall responses to the above question, since the troops might have differing opinions based on whether they actually know someone who was gay. Knowing a gay person in their own unit and seeing firsthand that he/she is a good soldier/sailor/airman/marine or coastie, might affect how they view the issue of gays serving openly in the military. A further analysis of the data allows one to evaluate just that possibility. When the data are separated out based on those who said they either knew or didn’t know for certain a gay person in their own unit, a dramatic difference of opinion emerges:

*Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military? (Data from only those answering “yes” or “no” to knowing for certain there were gays or lesbians in their own unit)

	Agree	Neutral or Not Sure	Disagree
Know gays in unit	45%	24%	31%
Don’t know gays	24%	30%	46%

From the above responses, it’s obvious that when the troops actually know a gay person, their opinions change significantly in favor of allowing gays to serve openly. In essence, the “bogeyman” of an openly gay man or woman serving in the military disappears when there’s a real, live person involved (and not some assumed stereotype).

Another argument used by opponents of gays serving honestly in the military is that while gays might be able to serve openly in support duties (medical, legal, linguists, cooks, clerks, etc.), the hyper-macho world of the combat troops at “the tip of the spear” would never be accepting of known gay soldiers, marines, etc. Again, the poll data allows for an analysis of just this issue. Of combat troops among the respondents to the poll, 18% said they knew for certain there were gays in their own unit; 66% said there were no gays in their own unit, and 16% were unsure. And the following data shows the results of combat troops’ opinions on gays serving openly based on whether they knew gays in their unit:

Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military? (Combat troops only)

	Agree	Neutral or Not Sure	Disagree
Know gays in unit	36%	40%	24%
Don’t know gays	16%	26%	58%

While the reliability of these results must be looked at with some caution, because of the relatively small numbers involved in the analysis for each of these subgroups, it again is evident that when someone personally knows a gay person in their own unit, opinions about allowing gays to serve openly change markedly in favor of gays serving honestly.

Finally, the issue of unit morale, the foundation rationale for the current DADT law, was addressed by the Palm Center / Zogby poll. And here there is a HUGE difference of opinion between those who personally know gays in their unit compared to those who don’t.

How does the presence of gays or lesbians in your unit impact your unit morale (or, how would the presence of gays in your unit affect unit morale)?

	No Impact	Not Sure	Negative Impact
Know gays in unit	64%	6%	27%
Don’t know gays	26%	14%	58%

Again, and significantly, knowing a gay person in your unit dramatically alters the opinions about whether gays serving openly would be a detriment to unit morale. When the troops know a gay person, they are more than twice as likely to say there is no impact on unit morale; whereas when they don’t know a gay person, they are more than twice as likely to assume there would be a negative impact.

Bottom line from the polling data: there are lots of gay men and women serving openly, right now, in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; they are not causing a negative impact on morale, unit cohesion and combat readiness.

And if that's the reality on the ground during combat operations, why do we still need DADT? It seems to me our nation needs all the help it can get. When patrtiotic gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans are prevented from serving their country with the same honesty and dignity afforded their straight counterparts, national security suffers.

You can help. Write your Congressional Representative and Senators to ask that DADT be repealed and to allow gay, lesbian and bisexual men and women to serve their nation without discrimination.