Gays and Lesbians in the Military

Practice and Policy, 1917–45

Several marked shifts in accepted understandings of homosexuality have occurred since 1900. The historical view of homosexuals as criminals was already on the wane; by the 1920s, early attempts at defining homosexuality as being biologically determined gave way to theories suggesting that the behavior was part of an abnormal developmental pattern. Like legal, medical, or theological professionals, military authorities were confronted with new paradigms concerning homosexual activity. Despite growing acceptance of homosexuality as an innate characteristic, however, self-professed gay men and lesbians would continue to be diagnosed as mentally ill or maladjusted well into the second half of the 20th century; openly homosexual men were thereby deemed unfit for service, unreliable security risks, and inherently disruptive to the ongoing operation of the armed services.

Before World War II, the American military did not have any uniform procedure for handling men accused of sodomy. While in theory all sodomists were to be court-martialed, in practice, men were administratively discharged, allowed to resign their commissions, or, in cases where evidence was insufficient to convict, returned to service.

During World War II, authorities debated the policies and practices surrounding homosexual activity, in part because of the widespread variance in the deposition of individual cases within the service. Military leadership of this era was more willing to accept the professional expertise of medical personnel concerning these behaviors—and in the medical profession, the notion of homosexuality as an illness rather than a crime was gaining popularity. Thus, the utility of incarcerating or segregating homosexuals was called into question.

Over the course of the war, military policy concerning homosexuality underwent several important changes. First and most important, the term homosexual had largely replaced the term sodomist, although the legal ramifications of same-sex behaviors were neither eliminated nor elucidated. People who engaged in same-sex behaviors could be separated from the service through [Page 302]forced resignation or by administrative discharge. Even if no sexual activity had occurred, a growing body of policy supported the conceptualization of a “homosexual personality,” who was to be barred at induction or separated upon discovery. Also during this period, the military definition of homosexuality was extended to women engaged in same-sex behavior.

...