At an international congress on Managing diversity within armed forces held at the Dutch Royal Military Academy in Breda,¹ an audience member requested all ethnic minorities to stand up, then all women and then — all homosexuals. Astonishingly, out of an audience of close to 500 predominantly military personnel, over thirty people stood up. He asked the question: "Why at a conference discussing race and gender is everyone silent on the issue of homosexuality?" He then professed that he was a priest and gay.

The Netherlands is considered one of the most tolerant towards homosexuality, but even here it seems that homosexual orientation in the military is a silent right. The South African National Defence Force (SANDF) has one of the most liberal policies ‘on paper’ on homosexuality, but it is doubtful whether anyone would have stood up with such confidence if asked the same question. Why is it that homosexuals are treated with such abhorrence, especially within the armed forces? What influence does sexual preference have on one’s ability to function within the military?

The military is without a doubt one of the most pro-typically masculine of all social institutions. Although many homosexuals have served honourably in the military, and still do, few reveal their sexual orientation. To succeed in the military environment, most feel pressured to hide their sexual orientation, but it is precisely this predicament that places homosexuals in the armed forces in a double bind. By virtue of their need to conceal their sexual identity, they are considered bad security risks.² If they reveal their sexual orientation, their presence is said to undermine discipline, cohesion and morale and they are subject to victimisation by the heterosexual majority. As a columnist in the United States wrote, "[t]he lifeblood of a soldier is masculinity, bravery and gallantry. The battlefield soldier is inspired to risk all by fighting with comrades whose attributes conform to his view of manhood ... And it is inarguable that the majority of a fighting force would be psychologically and emotionally deflated by the close presence of homosexuals who evoke effeminate and repugnant but not manly visions."³

This article examines the position of homosexuals in the military and the arguments that have been forwarded against their admittance in the armed forces, both in South Africa and internationally. Even though the policy guidelines of the Department of Defence (DoD) explicitly forbid discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gays and lesbians in the SANDF have remained ‘in the closet’ and the issue of homosexuality within the ranks remains mute.

Largely due to the lobbying of local gay groups and gay activists within the international anti-apartheid movement, together with the party political support of the African National Congress, the Inkatha Freedom Party and the Democratic Party, homosexual rights were entrenched in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996.⁴ This was a "... constitutional scoop for gays", for South Africa became the first country in the world with a Constitution that explicitly outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.⁵

The state made the commitment that it would respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.⁶ One of the most fundamental rights entrenched in the Constitution is that of equality. Section 9(3) states that "[t]he state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against any one on one or more ground, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth is prohibited."⁷ The equality clause establishes both ‘marital status’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as grounds on which constitutional equality is secured.

In accordance with constitutional provisions, the White Paper on Defence confirmed that "... the SANDF shall not discriminate against any of its members on the grounds of sexual orientation."⁸ Previous South African Defence Force (SADF) policy as outlined in the SADF Personnel Code, Section E/V/XV1, classified homosexuality as sexually deviant and immoral behaviour. One could not be selected to become a permanent force member of the SADF if ‘gay’. A standard question to which the applicant had to reply was whether he or she was a ‘latent’ or ‘practising homosexual’. Any reasonable doubt that the person could be gay, especially if destined to be an officer or instructor, would lead to non-appointment.

A member found guilty of homosexual acts was subject to disciplinary action and pending the nature and gravity of the misconduct, discharged if found guilty during a court martial. If a member of the permanent force admitted guilt, but there was no evidence of misconduct, the person was sent for rehabilitation. This policy pertained only to permanent force or service volunteers, not to conscripts as it was believed that ‘claiming’ to be gay would be used to avoid national service. Thus, gay conscripts had to be accommodated, but were not appointed in leadership positions or posts where they had access to sensitive information. The general trend was to place such persons in ‘more suitable posts’ such as catering or as medical orderlies.⁹

Current regulations do not discriminate in any way on the grounds of sexual orientation and recruiting centres do not question an applicant’s sexual preference. This approach is based on the principle that personnel are recruited according to certain management requirements to render specific services. The candidate who best meets all the requirements will be offered the job and sexual orientation is not a consideration in relation to posting or career development opportunities. The emphasis is placed on the most suitable candidate to render the required service. The SANDF has no concern with the sexual activities of its members, provided that they are not unlawful and not contrary to, or inconsistent with the inherent requirements of the SANDF, namely military effectiveness, the preservation of group cohesion, respect for command relations, collective discipline and the maintenance of morale.¹⁰

While no action will be instituted against a member of the SANDF for being a homosexual, the policy still remains that any sexually atypical or immoral behaviour that could detrimentally affect esprit de corps or morale, or cause emotional stress, thereby affecting military discipline or effectiveness, is subject to disciplinary action and the perpetrator may be punished with detention, reprimanded, fined or discharged.¹¹ This policy applies to unacceptable sexual behaviour by both heterosexual and homosexual members. What is exactly is meant by ‘unacceptable behaviour’ is not clear, as even the DoD’s policy on sexual harassment does not stipulate the sanctions that can be imposed if found guilty.

One of the greatest institutional challenges concerning homosexual integration is how to accommodate same sex marriages. Previously, same sex couples could not legally marry and the Sexual Offences Act, No 23 of 1957 made it a crime for two males to have sex. These laws have now been repealed.¹² Sodomy is no longer a crime and same sex couples will soon be entitled to all the benefits that heterosexual couples currently enjoy. Previously, housing and housing loan applications based on same sex relationships were not accepted, area bound and transfer applications based on same sex couples were not considered and spousal benefits such as medical aid and pensions did not extend to same sex partners. If equality on the ground of sexual orientation is to be implemented, all these issues need to be revised in the Public Service Staff Code and the Military Disciplinary Code.

As Dandeker¹³ rightfully points out, the social pressure for equality and the maintenance of individual rights poses a serious challenge for the institutional culture of armed forces that, until recently, have been a largely all-male and highly hierarchical repository of traditional values in modern society. Just as the admittance of women in the military is a subject of widespread debate, this is even more so for homosexuals. Even though the SANDF forbids discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, this remains a highly contentious and sensitive issue.

As the armed forces tend to apply different sanctions on homosexuals based on the extent of their sexual orientation, it is necessary to define the concepts used briefly. The term ‘sexual orientation’ refers to the innate disposition of human beings to express their sexuality. Heterosexuality, homosexuality (lesbian women and gay men) and bisexuality are included in this definition.

Within the military, a distinction is often made between homosexual orientation and homosexual conduct. Kenneth Plummer¹⁴ classifies the extent of homosexual conduct into four categories. ‘Casual homosexuality’ is a passing homosexual encounter that does not substantially structure the overall sexual life of the individual. Typically schoolboy crushes and mutual masturbation are examples. ‘Situational homosexuality’ refers to circumstances in which homosexual activities regularly occur, but where these do not become an individual’s overriding preference once removed form the environment. In settings such as prisons or military camps, this type of sexual activity is common, but is seen as a mere substitute for heterosexual behaviour.

‘Personalised homosexuality’ refers to individuals who have a preference for homosexual activities, but who keep their sexual preference secret — hidden from friends and colleagues. ‘Homosexuality as a way of life’ refers to individuals who openly acknowledge their sexual preference and for whom homosexual activity is integrated into a distinct lifestyle.¹⁵ In the African context, situational same sex activity has been the more prevalent form of homosexuality, whereas in Europe the tendency towards homosexuality as a lifestyle is greater.¹⁶

As will be shown, the sanctions imposed on homosexuals by the military are often linked to the extent of homosexual behaviour and whether members actually engage in such sexual practices.

In comparison to European countries, the debate on the ‘lifting of the ban’ on homosexuals in the SANDF has been virtually non-existent. A possible explanation is the preoccupation with race and gender and the relatively silent pro-gay lobby in South Africa. Nonetheless, it remains a controversial issue and it is yet to be seen to what extent the DoD will be obliged to uphold and actively promote gay rights in the military.

Many still see homosexual behaviour as incompatible with military service and a threat to the combat effectiveness of the military. Even the current SANDF policy states that homosexuality will be tolerated as long as sexual activities do not undermine "... military effectiveness, the preservation of group cohesion, respect of command relations, collective discipline and the maintenance of morale." These provisions apply equally to heterosexuals, but are nonetheless the traditional arguments put forward by the military establishment against homosexuals serving in the armed forces.

One of the main arguments against the admittance of homosexuals in the military is that they pose a security risk. Because they are forced to conceal their sexual identity, homosexuals are more likely to manifest psychological disorders, are more susceptible to blackmail, and less trustworthy and respectful of rules and laws.¹⁷

Homosexuality is considered to be a mental disorder that renders the person unstable. Not only do most homosexuals battle to cope with their sexual identity, but as a stigmatised group, they are placed under considerable pressure to manage potentially damaging information about themselves if they want to pursue a military career or avoid adverse reaction from the heterosexual majority. However, there is no scientific proof that homosexuals are mentally more unstable than heterosexuals. Their susceptibility to psychopathology is not due to sexual orientation per se, but because of society’s negative reaction to homosexuality.¹⁸ Obviously, in countries with more tolerant attitudes towards homosexuals,¹⁹ the psychological stress to conceal sexual identity is less and the ability to cope with one’s own identity is better. But policies such as ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ tend to reinforce the discrimination against homosexuals.

In 1993 in an attempt to win the gay and lesbian vote, the Clinton administration adopted a compromised position on homosexuality in the military by advocating a ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. What this policy simply did, was avoid asking the person about their sexual orientation before entering the military, but still made homosexual conduct a condition of discharge.²⁰ A homosexual can still be expelled from the United States (US) armed forces if the member is found to have:

engaged in, attempted to engage in or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts;



stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual; or



married or attempted to marry someone of the same sex.²¹

This policy encouraged homosexuals to lie about their status and serve in the military as long as they did not tell anyone about their sexual preference. Forcing them to lie or cover up their sexual orientation, in effect reinforced the ‘security risk’ argument. Susceptibility to coercion of blackmail can only occur where an attempt is made to conceal one’s sexual identity. An openly gay person cannot be coerced by threats. A policy that encourages declarations about homosexuality, thereby reducing the number of closet homosexuals reduces the security risk.

On the question of whether homosexuals pose a security risk based on the continued pressure to conceal their sexual identity, it is of interest to note that, in the four decades during which the US had security clearance programmes, not one instance has been recorded of blackmail of an American for espionage in which homosexuality was involved. There is also no evidence to suggest that any homosexuals have betrayed their country in order to avoid disclosure of their sexual orientation, even in times when public disclosure had far more serious consequences than today.²² Similarly, the argument that homosexuals are less trustworthy lacks substantive evidence.

The majority of military members in the US were not in favour of a policy that permitted gays and lesbians to ‘come out of the closet’. About 95 per cent of those in military service opposed homosexuals serving openly because of the potential effect it would have on morale, cohesion and discipline.²³ For the sake of military effectiveness, the majority felt that it is best not to ask service members to reveal or discuss their sexual orientation.

On the one hand, if gays and lesbians conceal their sexuality, it is considered a security risk. On the other, if they reveal their sexuality, the argument is that their presence will undermine discipline, cohesion and morale.²⁴ Accepting homosexuals in the military will threaten the "... combat effectiveness of this specialised society."²⁵

Even though homosexual men and women are fit for military service in principle, many still consider persons with a homosexual orientation less suited for duty in the military than heterosexuals. Especially in leadership positions, the conventional wisdom is that, once it is known that the unit leader or instructor is a homosexual, he or she suffers grave impairment of his or her authority because of the prejudices still held against them. Because leaders with admitted homosexual tendencies lose credibility with the men serving under their command, they are less likely to demand the necessary respect and obedience from others.²⁶

In Germany, for example, the Federal Administrative Court held that, should soldiers be homosexual, then restrictions may be placed on their capacity to serve in leadership positions. The military command moves from the presumption that homosexuals generally are not fit to be military superiors, since once their sexual orientation is known, it could lead to a loss in their authority that would influence operational readiness and discipline.²⁷ The Court found that homosexuality represents an "aptitude deficiency" that is sufficient grounds for upholding the right of the military as an employer to refuse to allow homosexual soldiers to function in command positions and as trainers and instructors. If their sexual orientation becomes known, they are removed from positions of command.²⁸ These arguments are based on evidence, among others, that homosexuals have higher suicide and alcohol abuse rates than heterosexuals and are mentally less suited for these positions.²⁹ In the former SADF, homosexuals were also not appointed to leadership positions for similar reasons.³⁰

Concerning the potential impact of homosexuals on cohesion, a distinction must be made between the two components of cohesion, namely social and task cohesion. ‘Social cohesion’ refers to the emotional bonds of friendship, liking, caring and closeness among group members. ‘Task cohesion’ is the shared commitment among members to reach the collective goals of the group.³¹ Both forms of cohesion are considered essential for combat effectiveness, but it is specifically social cohesion (often referred to as male bonding) that is undermined by the integration of homosexuals due to the tensions that may arise between known homosexuals and other service members.³² Because of the prejudices that exist against gays and lesbians, they are viewed as being disruptive and a threat to group cohesion.³³

Task cohesion may also be undermined if members of the group refuse to work with homosexuals. However, with regard to the ability to perform their work successfully, homosexuals are often highly effective. Even in the US military that is extremely hostile towards homosexuals, officers commanding often protected the gays and lesbians in their unit because they were dedicated, hardworking and career-oriented.³⁴ Virtually uniformly, gay service members were found to conduct themselves in a professional manner in their interpersonal relationships and their sexual preference did not detract from their ability to perform their work successfully. Within the SANDF, a senior officer expressed the same sentiments about known gays and lesbians, although he preferred not to socialise with them.³⁵

The perception exists that lesbians are somewhat more tolerated than gay men in the military and have less of an impact on morale and discipline. Several possible reasons for this exist. Unless a woman admits to being a homosexual, it is often difficult to prove, while male homosexuality has long been found unacceptable.³⁶ The presence of gay men, especially those who have proven to be highly competent in military service calls the whole issue of masculinity into question. For women, victimisation has less to do with homophobia, but more with discrimination faced by women breaking into occupations once reserved for men. When successful, they are often accused of being lesbian, if they fail, its because they are women. Shield³⁷ summarises the double bind women find themselves in: "[w]hen they succeed in their work role, their femininity is questioned, when they fail, their womanliness is affirmed at the expense of their work role."

In different ways, the presence of women and gays in the military has challenged the traditional concept of manhood in the military.³⁸ The arguments that homosexuals undermine discipline, cohesion and morale may be justified in some instances, but they are based on the prejudices that exist against gays and lesbians, not on their ability to be good soldiers. They are excluded because of biases against them that can be neither sanctioned by nor accepted on legal or moral grounds.³⁹

Even where these biases are acknowledged and homosexuals have proven themselves capable, the argument is that they cannot be effectively employed because of existing prejudices. Heterosexuals do not want to share their living spaces with homosexuals and the lack of privacy is sufficient reason to exclude them from the military. Even if based on homophobic sentiment, discrimination is justified if the assignment is likely to cause friction that may undermine combat effectiveness.

The military is still a community of men, who often serve in cramped quarters affording minimal privacy. Under such circumstances, soldiers are expected to eat together, sleep together, shower together and ultimately be prepared to die together. Heterosexual men do not want to share their most private facilities with those of the same sex who may find them sexually attractive.⁴⁰ This policy is based on the notion that homosexuals will not be able to control their sexual impulses and will therefore harass and invade the privacy of fellow soldiers. The same arguments have been forwarded by women who are subject to subtle coercion or outright sexual advances by more senior aggressive lesbian soldiers.⁴¹

The military’s concern over privacy rests on the stereotype that homosexuals are supersexuals who will exploit their positions of authority to sexually harass their subordinates.⁴² However, there is no evidence to support the notion that lesbians and gay men are more likely than heterosexuals to engage in sexual harassment or are less able to control their sexual impulses than straights. On the contrary, because they must exercise such discretion in order to protect themselves and their careers, they are often more circumspect and have a higher degree of self-control than heterosexuals.⁴³

While many may be cautious to reveal their sexual preference for fear of victimisation or possible discharge, it is often difficult to forward convincing counterarguments on grounds of their sexual activity. A study among homosexuals found that 43 per cent estimated that they would have sex with around 500 or more partners in their lifetime and 28 per cent with more than 1 000.⁴⁴ It is this aspect of homosexual behaviour that has brought their sexual orientation into disrepute as a decadent and immoral lifestyle. Armed forces want people of good moral character, a standard that historically has excluded homosexuals as a result of their moral weaknesses.

The level and nature of sexual activity invariably increases the probabilities of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. One of the main concerns with the liberalisation of gay rights in the military is the increase in sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and the linkage of STDs with the deadly human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections — the precursor to acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

Male homosexuality has been associated with the social impact of AIDS. In the US, homosexual men account for over seventy per cent of all AIDS cases and this is believed to be even higher in most European countries.⁴⁵ As AIDS was initially almost exclusively limited to the gay population, this has tended to perpetuate existing prejudices, especially in the military where the relationship has been one of exclusion and antagonism. In South Africa, the situation is somewhat different. Of the reported AIDS cases, 79 per cent among whites were transmitted by homosexual or bisexual contact, compared with 64 per cent of African cases said to have been transmitted by heterosexual contact.⁴⁶

Even though AIDS is no longer exclusively linked to homosexuality, gays are still held as a high risk group. The need to keep a distance from them has become more pronounced, especially given the nature of military employment: war is a ‘bloody business’. The concern is that fellow soldiers will not help a wounded homosexual soldier for fear that they may have AIDS and by doing so would sign their own death warrant

Since all soldiers are expected to be available for transfusion if injured in combat, the greater incidence of HIV infections among gays is seen as a threat to the "... army’s walking blood supply."⁴⁷ Not only are they potentially dangerous to fellow soldiers, but they themselves are more susceptible to infections. The implication is that these soldiers may not be psychologically or physically fit to fight and this reduces overall efficiency.

The military is considered to be a social group at special risk for HIV transmission and infection. Armed forces employ people precisely in the age group at the greatest risk of HIV infection, the 15-24 year age group. The nature of their work frequently takes soldiers away from home for lengthy periods. Situational homosexuality is more prevalent in isolated all-male situations, but the greatest impact of AIDS on the military is due to sex workers. For example, 45 per cent of Dutch navy members and marines on peacekeeping duty in Cambodia had sexual contact with sex workers.⁴⁸ First infection rates of STDs among the military are two to five times higher than STD infection rates in civilian populations — for heterosexuals. Both the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and African militaries confirm higher HIV rates among military personnel.⁴⁹ Although all militaries are affected by HIV/AIDS, reports show averages of between twenty to forty per cent HIV infection in the armed forces in sub-Saharan Africa, with rates of up to fifty and sixty per cent in some countries where the virus has been present for over ten years.⁵⁰ In South Africa, HIV among soldiers serving in the SANDF is conservatively estimated to be between fifteen and eighteen per cent.⁵¹

Clearly, AIDS is no longer a homosexual issue and for the military this cannot be used as an excuse to purge gays from the ranks.

Although many of the same arguments against the inclusion of homosexuals have been forwarded against the integration of women and blacks in the military, their integration is seen to be in the best interest of the armed forces. The same conviction does not exist for homosexual integration. There has been strong opposition to equating racial and gender discrimination with that experienced by homosexuals. Race and sex are biological determinants, while sexual orientation is acquired behaviour that can be treated and reversed — it is a matter of choice.

Recent studies have refuted such sentiments. Scientific evidence seems to confirm that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic and that sexual predilection is largely determined by genetic, neurological, hormonal and environmental factors prior to birth. Homosexual orientation is not consciously chosen, but at least in part biologically determined. Studies have identified genetic similarities between men with similar sexual orientations. A study of 37 monozygotic twins, each of whom were bisexual or homosexual, showed that all 37 sets of twins were either bisexual or homosexual. A strikingly similar pattern of homosexuality developed in these twins entirely independently. Even in a case where the twins were separated at birth and did not grow up in a near identical environment, both were found to be exclusively homosexual.⁵² Another study of 76 self-acknowledged gay men and 26 families of gay men revealed a high correlation of men with similar sexual orientation between brothers and relatives on the maternal side.⁵³

Other studies have discovered that mothers, who suffered severe stress during pregnancy, had a higher incidence of gay sons. Increased adrenaline levels caused by stress lower the testosterone level in the male foetus. This is believed to influence sexual orientation. Similarly, the use of synthetic oestrogen used to reduce the risk of miscarriage has been associated with an increased incidence of lesbian daughters.⁵⁴

Although the causes of homosexuality are not fully understood, scientific research indicates that a person has very little control over his or her sexual orientation once this is acquired and it is largely impervious to change.⁵⁵ This depends upon the propensity of homosexuality. Studies by Kinsey found that a much greater incidence of homosexuality and homosexual experience exists within society than previously thought. In fact, although only four per cent of men were found to be exclusively homosexual, a full 37 per cent had at least one homosexual experience between adolescence and old age.

The psychological reactions and overt experience were measured on a seven point scale ranging from 0 to 6 as reflected in figure 1.⁵⁶ The ratings are as follows:

0 Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual experience and no mental response to people of the same sex.

Additional findings by Kinsey are that thirty per cent of males have at least incidental homosexual experiences or reactions (rate 1-6), 25 per cent more than incidental (rate 2-6), eighteen per cent at least as much of the homosexual as heterosexual experiences or reactions (rate 3-6), thirteen per cent more homosexual than heterosexual (rate 4-6), some ten per cent more or less exclusively homosexual (rate 5-6), and eight per cent are exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of sixteen and 55.⁵⁷ The implication of these findings for the military is that there is a far greater propensity of homosexuality than previously thought. Similar trends were found among women, although only about one to three per cent were exclusively lesbians.⁵⁸

The variance in the extent of homosexuality also explains why numerous clinical attempts to reorient homosexuals into heterosexuals have yielded mixed results. In most cases, the reduction in homosexual feelings and behaviour after aversive therapy did not result in a change in the sexual orientation of patients. The majority of previously exclusively homosexual males remained primarily homosexual and the rates of those previously bisexual reorienting to exclusively heterosexual, were around fifty per cent.⁵⁹ In the 1970s, this form of behavioural therapy was applied to homosexuals in the SADF.⁶⁰ However, the conclusion was that even with those totally committed to the reorientation process, the therapy was no more successful than attempts to reorient heterosexuals into homosexuals.⁶¹

The finding that sexual orientation is an immutable trait, not chosen or learned, is important not only in a social context, but in a legal and political sense. The immutability of a trait that is the basis for discrimination cannot be justified and this had led to the repeal of laws and statutes that discriminate against homosexuals.

Even though it is now widely accepted that homosexuality is biologically determined and not a behavioural choice, the broader heterosexual population is still not positively disposed towards gays and lesbians. Attempts to develop a political consciousness to change the attitudes and laws discriminating against them is complicated by the fact that, politically, they constitute a powerless minority. In the US, for example, known violence against gays is a disincentive for gay people to identify themselves as such, or to openly join groups that advocate gay rights.⁶²

The stigma attached to gay people does not encourage other majority groups in society to advocate gay rights in an attempt to eradicate existing prejudices. Not only are gays hopelessly outnumbered, they are despised by the heterosexual majority who are reluctant to associate themselves with the gay rights movement for fear of contamination by anti-gay sentiment. As a minority group on their own they are powerless to pursue their rights in the political arena because they are widely dispersed and politically diverse.⁶³ Because they are underrepresented in the political process, they have been unable to secure their interests, or bring about any substantial change in attitude among the heterosexual majority.

In the past few years, however, the political power of homosexuals has increased considerably, especially in societies where social values have resulted in a more liberal position on homosexuality. In South Africa, the rights of homosexuals are enshrined in the Constitution and there is a growing political assertiveness by the gay and lesbian community. During the recent 1999 elections, there was even an attempt by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Party (GLA) to contest the elections. The party leader, Mr John Uys said he wanted to show the heterosexual community that so-called homosexual people, representing approximately ten per cent of the population, were powerful and that they "... would aim to create a more positive attitude towards homosexuals ... [and] ... oppose and condemn any discrimination against homosexuals."⁶⁴

The party never contested the elections in the end, primarily due to a conflict of interests with other gay groups.⁶⁵ The National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality (NCGLE), a coalition of more than seventy gay organisations, accused GLA of being a political party of "... white male racists ..." and maintained that the interests of lesbian and gay people would be better served by winning majority support in society and in parliament for lesbian and gay equality.⁶⁶ The growing political assertiveness of these gay groups means that the SANDF will be subject to greater scrutiny should it implement policies or discriminate against gays and lesbians in any way.

Within South African society, there appears to be definite racial and cultural divisions when it comes to the acceptance of homosexuality. Whites are increasingly prepared to acknowledge their sexual preference as a lifestyle, following European trends, while for blacks family traditions of ‘manhood’ and the requirement to have children often bind even those with homosexual preferences into a heterosexual relationship.⁶⁷ In traditional African society, the fulfilment of social roles takes precedence over individual preferences. Whereas situational same sex activity is tolerated, a display of homosexual orientation or a gay lifestyle is not. As a lifestyle, "... homosex is not a Black culture, but their certainly appears to be greater tolerance in homosexual conduct as long as the person maintains his or her role in public."⁶⁸

South Africa is the only country in the world that constitutionally forbids discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The military is often regarded as the state’s barometer of attitudes towards homosexuality, and the commitment given by the SANDF to abide by the constitutional provisions can be seen as a sign of the growing tolerance towards gays and lesbians within society.

Even liberal democracies such as the US still discharge members on the grounds of homosexuality. Their exclusion from the military is based on the following justifications: that they are mentally unsuitable for military service, that they pose a security risk and that the presence of gays in the unit disrupts group cohesion, morale and discipline. Because of homophobic sentiments, gay soldiers are unable to function effectively in the military, the heterosexual majority does not want to socialise with them, and where in positions of command, they will fail to demand the respect of their subordinates. All these revolve around one central issue, that the acceptance of homosexuals in the military undermines military effectiveness.

However, most of the arguments are based on prejudice against homosexuals with no proof that their integration has undermined operational effectiveness. Nowhere is it shown or proven that homosexual people are inherently less capable of military service than heterosexual women and men. Nor is there any explanation why discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is necessary to preserve good order, discipline and morale. The few studies that exist, indicate that both gays and lesbians are loyal, accept the surrounding heterosexual culture, comply with the physical and emotional demands of their job, are not a security risk and conduct themselves in a professional manner.⁶⁹ Their exclusion is based on the professional military judgement of the ‘possible’ effect they may have on military effectiveness — not on scientific evidence.⁷⁰

The greatest controversy, as for women in the armed forces, centres on their integration in combat units. Even here, a recent study of the actual experience of gays in combat units in Israel shows that they either actively attempt to identify with the masculine values of combat culture, or set out to prove their mental and physical ability to cope with their soldiering roles, demonstrating their worth and rising above the stigma of being gay.⁷¹ As with the integration of women in the armed forces, the controversy over homosexuals in the military is an example of how the military tries to maintain the masculine character of the institution.

No doubt a damaging factor with respect to homosexual integration has been the prevalence of HIV/AIDS among homosexual soldiers, especially within the European context. But HIV/AIDS is no longer a homosexual issue, even more so in Africa where AIDS is clearly a heterosexual disease. Compulsory testing of all soldiers for HIV should reduce the concern with HIV infection on the battlefield.

Efforts to foster greater acceptance of homosexuality are governed by social values. Both European and African communities do not accept homosexuality as a valid and morally equivalent alternative to heterosexuality. As long as a significant percentage of society regards homosexuality in a negative light, the military will find it difficult to find a moral foundation on which to base an education programme to change attitudes. Homosexuality may be an immutable characteristic, but the longstanding intolerance towards gays and lesbians makes it so much more difficult for them as a politically powerless minority group to dispel the deeply entrenched sentiments that exist. Homosexuals experience the classic symptoms of a minority group that is discriminated against and like other prejudices, attitudes can only be changed as a result of education and greater interaction between ‘straights and gays’.⁷²

In South Africa, the situation exists where homosexuality is permitted by law, rather than accepted. A decrease in hostile attitudes is not the same as an increase in social acceptance. What may at first glance appear to represent an increase in liberal attitudes, is actually a mere growth in indifference. Similarly, homosexuality is neither condoned nor condemned within the SANDF, provided that existing regulations on social conduct is not violated. Negative sentiment still prevails and this is possibly why, even with the ‘constitutional scoop’ guaranteeing homosexual rights, few have come out of the closet and why within the military, it remains ‘a silent right’.

This is an edited version of a paper presented at the South African Political Science Association Congress, Military Academy, Saldanha, 29 June-2 July 1999. The author currently serves as Deputy Director of the Centre for Military Studies at the Military Academy.

Conference on Managing Diversity in Armed Forces, Dutch Royal Military Academy, Breda, 25-28 November 1998.



G Lewis, Lifting the ban on gays in the civil service: Federal policy toward gay and lesbian employees since the Cold War, Public Administration Review, 57(5), 1997, p. 388.



R Shilts, Conduct unbecoming; Gays and lesbians in the US military, Penguin, London, 1993, p. 730.



Republic of South Africa, Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, No 108 of 1996, Government Printer, Pretoria, 1996. Hereafter the Constitution.



A J G M Sanders, Homosexuality and the law: A gay revolution in South Africa, Journal of African Law, 41, p. 105.



Constitution, op. cit., Section 7(2).



Ibid.



DoD, White Paper on National Defence: Defence in a Democracy, Department of Defence Pretoria, 1996, p. 18.



L Heinecken, Social equality versus combat effectiveness: An institutional challenge for the military, African Security Review, 7(6), 1998, pp. 3-16.



L Steyn, Mense wat in kaste skuil, Salut, November 1997, p. 67.



Ibid.



Court order end to gay ‘bullying’, Sunday Times, 14 February 1999, p. 14.



C Dandeker, New times for the military: Some sociological remarks on the changing role and structure of the armed forces of the advanced societies, British Journal of Sociology, 45(4), 1994, p. 648.



A Giddens, Sociology, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1995, p. 197.



Ibid.



Sanders, op. cit., p. 101.



JHerek, On prejudice toward gay people and gays as security risk, in M Wolinsky & K Sherrill (eds.), Gays and the military, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1993, p. 133.



Herek, op. cit., p. 133.



Examples of countries where homosexuals can serve openly include Israel, Germany, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Brazil, Norway, Japan and South Africa.



S Sarkesian, J Williams & F Bryant, Soldiers, society and national security, Lynne Rienner, London, 1995, p. 83.



D Burelli, Homosexuals and US military policy: Current issues, 12 December 1996, <www.fas. org/man/crs/96-029.htm#summ>.



Homosexuality vs military ... Legal history (thesis paper), <qrd.tcp.com/qrd/usa/ military/staelin/tsthesis>.



Sarkesian et al., op. cit., p. 83.



B Fleckenstein, Homosexuality and military service in Germany, SOWI-Arbeitspapier, 48, München, October 1993, p. 11.



L Maginnis, A case against the lifting the ban on homosexuals, Army, January 1993, p. 38.



Fleckenstein, op. cit., p. 17.



P Klein, Managing diversity in the German armed forces, paper presented at the Conference on Managing diversity in armed forces, Dutch Royal Military Academy, Breda, 25-28 November 1998, p. 10.



Fleckenstein, op. cit., p. 7.



Maginnis, op. cit., p. 39.



Heinecken, op. cit., pp. 10-13



M Harrel & L Miller, New opportunities for military women: Effects upon readiness, cohesion and morale, Rand Publishers, Santa Monica, Washington, 1997, p. 54.



Maginnis, op. cit., p. 380.



M Wolinsky & K Sherrill, Gays and the military, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1993, p. 5.



Shilts, op. cit., p. 720.



Comments by a senior executive officer at Chief Directorate Equal Opportunities.



Shilts, op. cit., pp. 5, 720.



PMShields, Sex roles in the military, in C Moskos & F Wood (eds.), The military more than just a job?, Pergamon-Grasseys, 1988, p. 107.



Shilts, op. cit., p. 5.



Wolinsky & Sherrill, op. cit., p. 5.



Fleckenstein , op. cit., p. 11.



Herrek, op. cit., p. 128



Wolinsky & Sherrill, op. cit., p. 29



Herek, op. cit., p. 128.



Maginnis, op. cit., p. 38.



Giddens, op. cit., p. 200.



SAIRR, South African Survey 1997/1998, South African Institute of Race Relations, Johannesburg, 1998, p. 459.



Maginnis, op. cit., p. 38.



Aids in the military: Fact and figures, <hivinsite. ucsf.edu/topics/military/2098.3ec3.html>.



Civil-military alliance to combat HIV and AIDS, Alliance Newsletter, 2(1), January 1996, p. 4.



Insite: Gateway to AIDS knowledge, <hivinsite. ucsf.edu/topics/military>.



Weermag toets of troepe aan vigs ly, Rapport, 14 February 1999, p. 17.



R Green, On homosexual orientation as an immutable characteristic, in Wolinsky & Sherrill, op. cit., pp. 59-60.



Homosexuality vs military ..., op. cit.



Ibid.



Wolinsky & Sherrill, K., op. cit., p. 17.



N Wright (ed.), Understanding human behaviour, Volume 1, BPC Publishing Limited, New York, 1974, p. 73.



Homosexuality vs Military ..., op. cit.



Ibid.



Green, op. cit., p. 74.



Heinecken, op. cit., p. 11.



Green, op. cit., p. 82.



K Sherrill, On gay people as a politically powerless group, in Wolinsky & Sherrill, op. cit, p. 103.



Ibid, p. 113.



Gays to contest general election, The Citizen, 13 January 1999, p. 1.



No love lost between gay groups, Saturday Argus, 16-17 January 1999, p. 7.



Gays slate gay political party, Saturday Star, 16 January 1999, p. 2.



T Wiese, Swart, gay en trots, Insig, October 1996, pp. 42-43.



Sanders, op. cit., p. 105.



D Kaplan & E Ben-Ari, Engaging or building walls? Identification strategies of gay men in combat units of the Israeli army, (forthcoming), p. 2.



Sarkesian, et al., op. cit., p. 83.



Ibid., p. 9, 14.



Herek, op. cit., p. 140.