Armed and... Gay
A Closer Look at GLBTQIAs and the Armed Forces
By Mikee dela Cruz
PUBLISHED: JUNE 2009

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"

ERNEST J. GAINES
American Author

Sometime in the 1990s, when he was a 21-year-old nursing student in Cotabato City, Jimmy C. met “this tall, dark and handsome military man – he was in the Philippine Army, assigned from metro Manila to help (deal with the presumed problems in also presumed Muslim Mindanao),” he recalls.  Introduced by a common acquaintance, they started hanging-out, enjoying each other’s company over coffee, a few rounds of drinks, VHS tapes, and movie marathons, which “eventually ended to a sexual relationship.”

Jimmy C. believes what they had “could have been more – the sex was sure great, and I knew we could have developed that sexual chemistry into something more,” he says, adding that “except that my military man was worried he’d be branded gay for considering to be with me.  Having sex was okay – but actually wanting to be with me was, well, gay; and he won’t have any of that.  Not when he’s a military man.”
This because “military and gay don’t mix,” Jimmy C. was told his military man was told – immediately barring “even MY consideration to join the army just to be closer to him,” Jimmy C. says, half-seriously.  “I actually gave that some thoughts, you know.”

Suffice it to say, the relationship did not thrive.

But more than a “military-fucked military fuck relationship,” as Jimmy C. now refers to that experience, what happened to Jimmy C. is but one of the offshoots of the “fucked up ways of seeing, thus treating, of homosexuality within the military.”

ANTIQUATED PRACTICES

The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has standing policies against homosexuality, most of them directed against male homosexuals (a.k.a. gays, particularly effeminate homosexuals, if not men, in general).  These include:

On Procurement:
Paragraph 5 of Circular 13 (GHQ AFP), dated 15 July 1991
Subject: Selective Enlistment
“A person is not in qualified status for enlistment or reenlistment if he/she has been found to have homosexual tendencies or has been determined by medical/psychological experts to manifest such behaviors while in the active service.”

On Discipline:
Para 5(4)(d) Circular 17 (GHQ AFP), dated 02 Oct 1987
Subject: Administrative Discharge Prior to Expiration of Term of Enlistment.
“An individual may be discharged by reason of unsuitability, not due to misconduct, when it has been determined that he is unsuitable for further military service because of homosexual tendencies, desires or interests accompanied by overt homosexual acts. A homosexual is an individual who demonstrates, by behavior, a preference or desire for sexual activity with persons of the same sex. Homosexuals are unfit for military service because their presence impairs the morale and discipline of the organization. Allegations of homosexuality shall be thoroughly and comprehensibly inquired into, with due regard for the peculiar susceptibility of such cases to malicious charges.”

Para 89(b) AFPRG 165-362 (HQ AFP), dated 29 Oct 1996
“An individual is recommended for discharge, for reason of unsuitability or unfitness, with a dishonorable discharge unless the particular circumstances in a given case warrant a general honorable discharge when it has been determined that an individual military record is characterized by sexual perversions including but not limited to latent and overt homosexuality.”

Article 5 (Military Professionalism), Section 4.3 (Unethical Acts) of the AFP Code of Ethics.
“Military personnel shall likewise be recommended for discharge/separation for reason of unsuitability due to 'all acts or omissions which deviate from established and accepted ethical and moral standards of behavior and performance as set forth in the AFP Code of Ethics. The following are examples: Fornication, Adultery, Concubinage, Homosexuality, Lesbianism, and Pedophilia.'”

As quoted by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (iglhrc.org), the AFP’s stance is derived from common misconceptions that gay (or being effeminate, for that matter; thus, knowingly or not, an attack on the feminine, on women) is weak. 

To wit: “The Armed Forces, by its name alone primarily among others, connotes (as) martial ability not only physical strength, appearance, and behavior, but moral, emotional and most especially psychological (fitness).  The establishment of appropriate selection criteria and procedures, most especially the physiological and psychological evaluation and considerations, can only maintain this.  Established standards, therefore, have to be adhered to in the strictest sense of the word.”

	1 | 2