THE VOICE OF CHICAGO'S GAY, LESBIAN, BI, TRANS AND QUEER COMMUNITY SINCE 1985

__________

Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman, keynote speaker at the city's noon June 21 tribute to GLB veterans, currently serves as a consultant in cold-weather medicine; is a professional affiliate with the Health, Leisure and Human Performance Research Institute at the University of Manitoba; and is a fellow of the American College of Preventive Medicine. He serves on the advisory board of directors for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network—a national non-profit providing direct services to military members affected by Don't Ask, Don't Tell ( DADT ) —and he is co-founder of the Puget Sound chapter of the American Veterans for Equal Rights ( formerly known as the Gay and Lesbian Veterans Association ) in Washington. Steinman, along with Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr and Brig. Gen. Virgil A. Richard, came out as a gay man when interviewed for the Dec. 10, 2003 issue of the New York Times. Each of the flag officers had had a long and distinguished military career and came out in order to take a stand against the military's anti-gay Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. It was a major step forward in awareness of the ramifications of a policy which not everyone knows has resulted in increased harrassment in the ranks and in the discharge of 11,000 people.

Steinman recently talked with Windy City Times about DADT.

Windy City Times: What was your reaction to the initial introduction of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy?

Alan M. Steinman: My initial reaction was that the opposition to allowing gays to serve openly was misplaced and based on a lack of understanding. I doubted that many GLB service members would initially come out, even if the ban were lifted so that, basically, there would be little difference from pre-ban to post-ban. ( A good analogy to what I'm referring to is what happened in Massachusetts the day after gay marriage was made legal; the sun came up, people went about their business, and the world didn't end—basically no difference from the day before ) . Gradually, I suspected, some GLB people would come out to those whom they trust, so that over time, it ultimately would be no big deal. That is more or less what is happening now, even with DADT, except that the threat of discharge or worse makes the process slower.

I found the vehemence expressed by those against GLB men and women to be surprising in its intensity. It demonstrated to me the near total misunderstanding about gays and lesbians serving in the military. Clearly, those opposing GLB members serving honestly based their antipathy on the tired media stereotypes of gays and lesbians, which was both disappointing and amusing at the same time. Yet it was very real.

Today's opposition continues to be based on those stereotypes; but when our opponents actually get to talk to a gay veteran, they find that gays and lesbians in the military are just as patriotic, talented, motivated and mission-oriented as their straight counterparts and are, in essence, indistinguishable from their heterosexual peers.

WCT: How has your thinking about it evolved? What instances made it clear to you over time that the policy was failing?

AMS: The major failure of DADT is the huge loss of talent, and the costs associated with that loss of talent, when GLB service members: 1 ) are involuntarily separated under DADT; 2 ) voluntarily resign their commissions or refuse to re-enlist because of the stresses involved with living a lie, with the fear of discharge if discovered, and with the emotional toll of having to violate their service's honor code in order to serve your country; and 3 ) do not join the military because of the disincentives of DADT.

The combination of personnel losses are far higher than the 600-750 people per year kicked out under DADT. A recent analysis of retention data by Dr. Gary Gates of the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, based on an academic survey of GLBT veterans, found that 19.2 percent admitted to voluntarily leaving the military because of the difficulties of serving under DADT. This translates to 3,000-4,000 people per year!! And it has been going on for 13 years. And every one of those 3000-4000 people are already paid for, trained and experienced. You simply can't replace them with a raw recruit off the street. At a time when the Pentagon is desperate for volunteers and wants to increase the end-strength of the military by 95,000 people over the next 5 years, the voluntary losses of 15-20 thousand people over five years is a significant portion of what [ the Department of Defense ] needs. And, again, they're already in uniform. Abolish DADT and most of these troops would remain.

The other major finding that has become apparent over the years since DADT was enacted was the absolute falsehood upon which the law was based. DADT was presented and sold to the public and to Congress as a way to preserve military readiness but yet allow GLB members to serve. The law specifically claims that the mere knowledge of the presence of a homosexual man or woman would degrade unit morale, destroy unit cohesion, and negatively impact combat readiness. Thus 'don't tell' became the watchword. Homosexuals could serve their country only if they were silent ( and celibate, according to the UCMJ ) .

The reality, however, is quite different. GLB members have always been in the military; and many of their peers have known about them as well. But for the current generation of young Americans, who have grown up in the MTV culture, where television shows and movies depict gays and lesbians living and working alongside straight peers without problems, and where an increasing number of high schools have gay-straight alliance clubs, etc., and where most of them know a gay or lesbian classmate or co-worker, it's not a big deal to associate with a GLB person. Over the years since DADT, more and more veterans have come out to their peers on active duty without causing a problem ( and sometimes their commands, too, has been aware of them ) . So that today, according to the recent Palm Center/Zogby International poll, nearly two-thirds of Iraq/Afghanistan combat veterans either know for certain ( 23 percent ) or suspect ( 45 percent ) that there is at least one gay or lesbian in their own unit. And 72 percent of these combat veterans say they have no problem working around a homosexual peer. So unless one thinks that our current combat readiness in Iraq or Afghanistan is lascking, wherefor the need for DADT?

WCT: When did you and how did you reach your decision to come out publicly? How was the stage set in years or decades leading up to the decision?

AMS: When I retired from the military after 25 years of service, having followed all the rules and regulations, I wanted to finally be able to be a gay man, to have all the joys and heartaches my straight friends and family take for granted in their lives. And while I was able to begin that process by coming out to my friends and family, I was still working with the military even in retirement. So I didn't come out publicly. Shortly after I retired from the Coast Guard, I was appointed to a Presidential Oversight Board looking into the issue of Gulf War Illness. The Board was chaired by former Senator Warren Rudman, R-N.H., and many of the other members of the committee were all influential Army and Navy senior officers and enlisted personnel. Coming out publicly and/or taking an advocacy stance on DADT would have quite distracting and disrespectful to my co-committee members and to the important work we were doing. It certainly would not have been appreciated by the President.

When our Oversight Board was completed in January of 2001, I felt free to pursue an advocacy role. I contacted Dixon Osburn, [ then ] head of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and offered my help as a gay retired flag officer. I subsequently became a member of SLDN's Honorary Board of Directors in 2002. We discussed my coming out publicly at that time, but I was advised by some trusted flag officer friends from the Coast Guard and DoD that doing so would backfire on us; the nation was still mobilizing after 9/11, and creating a distraction by publicly identifying as a gay admiral would not be well-received. I thought that was good advice at the time. Two years later, however, I and two gay retired Army generals, Keith Kerr and Virgil Richards ( who were also members of SLDN's Honorary BOD ) , decided to come out publicly together on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of DADT.

WCT: What feedback did you get from military people, acquaintances or strangers?

AMS: The feedback I received after coming out was entirely positive and supportive. My Coast Guard friends had no problems with it at all. I imagine, however, that there were likely some in the Coast Guard who were not so pleased to have the Coast Guard's name tied to the gay former Director of Health and Safety, but I personally did not receive any negative comments on my coming out. The immediate aftermath was a whirlwind of media interviews that created a very intense week to 10 days for me and my partner. But that all ended abruptly with the capture of Sadaam Hussein, thankfully terminating media interest in my little story.

Throughout all the media hubbub, I kept the reporters and TV vans away from my home and neighborhood ( I live on a quiet cul-de-sac in the small town of DuPont, WA, with a large percentage of military neighbors, since there are two large military bases nearby, the Army's base at Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base. ) And because, for whatever reason, the local newspaper ( the Tacoma News Tribune ) never published any mention of the three flag officers coming out publicly, I honestly don't think anyone in my neighborhood even knew. That is pretty much true even today, which is quite fine with me.

WCT: Is overturning DADT a different challenge now than it was when you first made your stand?

AMS: I don't think the challenge is really much different now than four years ago. Repealing the DADT law is a huge undertaking, and it was never going to be easy, then or now. Unless we get a majority in favor of change in both the House and the Senate, and a sympathetic president, the law will remain ( absent success in the courts in challenging the constitutionality of the law ) . However, we are now a lot closer to the possibility of repeal than we were back then. There is a bill for repeal in the House of Representatives, and good prospects for a companion bill in the Senate. The public is on our side of the issue, which was not true when the law was first enacted. But most importantly, I believe the majority of our young active duty members favor repeal of DADT or at least don't have the angst about serving with GLB members that they were assumed to have back in 1993. The recent polling data and the hundreds of stories of service from our gay veterans shows this to be true.

Along those lines, I had the privilege last year of serving as military adviser to the Call to Duty Tour, an amazing group of young gay veterans who toured the country speaking about DADT. Alex Nicholson and his partner, Jarrod Chlapowski brought the tour to life. They, Jules Sohn ( who was also on the tour ) and Antonio Agnone are sharing the podium with me for the Salute to Gay Veterans. Some of the Call to Duty veterans were kicked out under DADT; many of them served 'openly' their entire tour of duty, and most of them left the service voluntarily because of the stresses of serving under DADT. Our primary goal was to present to America the faces and voices of gay service men and women, particularly in 'red-state' America. Our theme was quite simple. The message we delivered was: 'I'm a gay soldier ( marine, sailor, airman, coastie ) ; my buddies knew I was gay and didn't care; I want to serve my country; what's the problem?'

The reception we received, even among traditional, conservative audiences, was amazing. When people who ordinarily would not come within a country mile of anything having to do with homosexuality, saw and heard the stories of these patriotic, young gay veterans, almost all opposition melted away. These men and women didn't fit the pre-conceived notions of gays and lesbians, and their sincerity and genuine patriotism were apparent to everyone. It's hard to come up with an argument opposing repeal of DADT when you're confronted with a man or woman with impeccable military bearing who tells you he or she served with the knowledge of peers ( and sometimes even of the command ) without a problem, and they would do so again in a heartbeat if DADT were repealed.

So to the extent we now have lots of these talented gay veterans willing to step forward and speak publicly on behalf of the tens of thousands of men and women forced to serve in silence, we're closer to winning this battle than we were even a few years ago.

Note:

In recent weeks, there have been editorials calling for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in a half dozen top papers, a front-page article in the NY Times and coverage in Time magazine. Also in recent months, former president Jimmy Carter has written in support, Republican Bob Barr ( a former member of Congress and one of the most conservative ) has chastised his party's candidates, Gen. Colin Powell has shown a softening stance, and George Will has quoted his daughter in her belief that being gay was like being left-handed and rather boring as controversies go.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act, now in the House, proposes repeal of the policy, allowing gays to serve in the armed forces under a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. When originally introduced the bill enjoyed more support than any other gay-related bill previously introduced. More on the bill, and how to let representatives hear from their contituents on this issue at SLDN.org .