In keeping in line with the criminality of homosexuality, we also discussed the idea of discrimination against homosexuals in the military. While this has been a long running point of debate for many, and there are various different aspects to approach this issue from, I have chosen to look into one of the most important issues that faced homosexuals serving in the armed forces in the past, the idea of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a policy which stated that while homosexuals could serve, they could not be openly homosexual while in uniform. Deciding to come out while still an active member of the armed forces could and would result in a discharge, and many people had actually lost their jobs because of this, while many
…show more content…
Thomasson, had been viewed as an exemplary officer by his peers and was even believed to possibly become a future leader in the military someday. Unfortunately for Thomasson, however, he decided to reveal his sexual identity, violating the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and resulting in him receiving an honorable discharge. During the ensuing legal case, the military lawyers put forth the argument that, despite their abilities demonstrated through the course of their duty, there was a “disruptive effect to unit cohesiveness caused by the mere presence of homosexuals in the military” (Thomasson v. Perry, 1996), and because of this it was in the best interests of the military to maintain their “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The idea of cohesion was so central to the military’s argument, in fact, that the words cohesion or cohesiveness appeared 46 separate times in the description of the case presented in the Casebook. Military lawyers also used Congressional investigations into the matter to help bolster their case, and it was these findings, in fact, which lead to the institution of the policy in the first …show more content…
This, his lawyers argued, was a clear violation of his rights. The judges in the case came down on the side of the military, however, claiming that the military operated as "a specialized society separate from civilian society" (Thomasson v. Perry, 1996) and shockingly upheld the decision that the discriminatory policy was, in fact, allowed to continue. “Congress,” the court stated, “made legislative findings more than sufficient to demonstrate that the exclusion of known homosexuals from military service both serves a legitimate governmental interest and is rationally related to that interest” (Thomasson v. Perry, 1996), and because of that interest “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policies were allowed to remain in place. Thomasson was thus discharged from the military, albeit with an honorable discharge, but the decision was far from unanimous, with four of the judges at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals filing their dissent. While the case did not go in the favor of the LGBT community, the very narrow margin with which it was decided showed the country that the position of LGBT’s had changed significantly, and they were coming much closer than they had been in years passed to achieving acceptance in this country.
Thomasson, had been viewed as an exemplary officer by his peers and was even believed to possibly become a future leader in the military someday. Unfortunately for Thomasson, however, he decided to reveal his sexual identity, violating the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and resulting in him receiving an honorable discharge. During the ensuing legal case, the military lawyers put forth the argument that, despite their abilities demonstrated through the course of their duty, there was a “disruptive effect to unit cohesiveness caused by the mere presence of homosexuals in the military” (Thomasson v. Perry, 1996), and because of this it was in the best interests of the military to maintain their “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The idea of cohesion was so central to the military’s argument, in fact, that the words cohesion or cohesiveness appeared 46 separate times in the description of the case presented in the Casebook. Military lawyers also used Congressional investigations into the matter to help bolster their case, and it was these findings, in fact, which lead to the institution of the policy in the first …show more content…
This, his lawyers argued, was a clear violation of his rights. The judges in the case came down on the side of the military, however, claiming that the military operated as "a specialized society separate from civilian society" (Thomasson v. Perry, 1996) and shockingly upheld the decision that the discriminatory policy was, in fact, allowed to continue. “Congress,” the court stated, “made legislative findings more than sufficient to demonstrate that the exclusion of known homosexuals from military service both serves a legitimate governmental interest and is rationally related to that interest” (Thomasson v. Perry, 1996), and because of that interest “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policies were allowed to remain in place. Thomasson was thus discharged from the military, albeit with an honorable discharge, but the decision was far from unanimous, with four of the judges at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals filing their dissent. While the case did not go in the favor of the LGBT community, the very narrow margin with which it was decided showed the country that the position of LGBT’s had changed significantly, and they were coming much closer than they had been in years passed to achieving acceptance in this country.