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

Supposedly:
“The presence of known homosexuals might affect mission accomplishment due to the following:

• Reduction of fighting skills. – Overt manifestation of homosexuality will mean reduction of fighting skills of a particular combat unit anchored form instability and indecisiveness when faced with situations that will threaten their lives. Correspondingly, this will give the enemy enough reason to be more aggressive.
• Security Risk – Practicing homosexual is vulnerable to blackmail to the detriment of security-related documents or information in his possession or control, in exchange for sexual favors or to avoid humiliation the moment his sexual perversions be exposed.
• Affect cohesion of military units. – The AFP is more concerned with the problem of integrating them into the cohesive team for defensive roles. Practicing homosexuals, when engaged in a relationship cease to be members of the unit in [a] social and emotional sense. Their commitment to one another negates the required loyalty to the organization and to their fellow soldiers.
• Public Perception. – The AFP should present a credible manifestation of strength so as to create a deterrent posture to would-be enemies of the state. It will lose this credibility if our marching or maneuvering troops appear effeminate or when orders and commands are melodiously [more] feminine than manly maneuvers. The AFP will be subjected to public ridicule when its members begin to frequent gay bars, make themselves look like women, and engage in sexual aberrations. It will lose respect from [within] itself, the people, and the enemy. What is more dangerous is that the AFP will reduce its aggressiveness in fighting wars, thus, correspondingly result to a situation that makes the enemy develop that “superiority complex” which is an important factor in winning a war.

IGLHRC further notes the AFP’s antiquated stance as not actually discriminating “(against) homosexuals as persons, but the contentious issue is their fitness, whether physical, mental, or psychological, in the profession of arms.  Thus, military policies (are) based on actual experience and sound judgment, not on fixed ideas of sexual equality.  By necessity, the military must be free to pursue policies aimed at maximizing its effectiveness.  The military, therefore, is not a suitable subject for experiments in social engineering such as the normalization of homosexuality. It would be an experiment fraught with immense risks and foreseeable consequences that the military cannot afford. The Armed Forces exist for the sole purpose of defending the country and the way of life of every citizen.  In view of (this), it is maintained that individuals who display and manifest overt acts of their homosexual orientations and the propensity to indulge in such acts, shall be excluded in the profession of arms.”

CHANGING FACE

It is the very association with the feminine, i.e. weakness, that gives the armed forces a self-righteous claim to ban homosexuals from entering its ranks – thus, even if there is an official non-ban (i.e. allowing) of homosexuals in the armed forces, this is limited only to those not showing overt homosexual behaviours.

Earlier, in a claim that made the Philippines among the still few countries to officially end the ban on gays serving in the military, the AFP openly – even proudly – announced how it has “a zero tolerance for discrimination among its ranks” by accepting gays to openly serve in the army.

“We welcome them.  We welcome everybody. We don't discriminate (gay) people here," Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner Jr., Army spokesman, earlier told ABS-CBN's morning show, "Umagang Kay Ganda."  "They are allowed (and) of course they will have the same assignments. They can also go to war," since, “as long as an applicant is physically, emotionally and mentally fit, the army would be proud to enlist them, including gay people.”

This is a somewhat desperate (for lack of a better word) move from the military, considering the continuing dwindling numbers of those interested to join its ranks – the military, as a whole, annually needs to enlist over 6,500 new recruits, a number not always reached, mainly because a candidate soldier receives only P8,700 per month (trainings last from three months to four months).

The big “BUT” is that, nonetheless, “once inside the organization, they have to live by a code of ethics and they have to observe decorum if they want to remain as members of the armed forces,” military spokesperson Ernesto Torres earlier said to The Manila Times.

And this is what GLBTQIA activists find reprehensible, as it falls short of giving full equality to GLBTQIAs.

CLAMOR FOR EQUALITY

In a statement following the AFP’s stance on homosexuals, Jonas Bagas, spokesperson for Project Equality, a GLBTQIA rights network comprised of such organizations as Akbayan Gay and Lesbian Collective, Babaylanes Inc., Dambana, Gayon-Albay, INDIGO-Bulacan, Institute of Politics and Governance, LIKHAAN, Student Council Alliance of the Philippines, Tabak Sangre – Tabaco City, The Library foundation (TLF) Share Collective, and the University of the Philippines (U.P.) Babaylan, said that while “we welcome the statements made by top military officials declaring that lesbians and gays are now accepted in the military, this is not sufficient.  There has to be a concrete and comprehensive non-discrimination policy in the military.”

Thus, although seen as a step forward for GLBTQIA rights in the Philippines, the invitation symbolizes the need to further “campaign for the removal of discriminatory provisions addressing homosexuality in the AFP Code of Ethics.”

Just as Oscar Atadero, secretary general of ProGay, earlier said in response to the development, “the issue should never be the sexual orientation of the individual applicants. Rather, it is the political orientation of the whole military structure that must be changed if it really sees itself as an institution that is responsive to the people's needs.”