Modern-day campaigns for civil rights and equal citizenship for queer folks tend to conjure up a progressive trajectory from exclusion to inclusion: from a dark past when the homosexual was excluded from equal citizenship (or forced to live closeted) to a not-yet-realized future in which one’s sexual identity, desires, and behaviors, do not exclude one from enjoying the rights and responsibilities of the American citizenry. The ability to apply for citizenship in the first place, the responsibility to serve in the armed forces, the personhood status to form legally-recognized kinship networks and access the welfare benefits distributed through those kinship systems. In our collective memory, we look backward in time to a period during which homosexual acts were illegal and homosexual identity stigmatized; we look forward to a period during which our bodies and relationships won’t ipso facto criminalize us (at worst) or shuffle us off as second-class or invisible citizens (still a precarious state of affairs).

Yet as Hanne Blank pointed out, in her recently-released Straight: The Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality, the notion of the heterosexual being (in opposition to the homosexual being) only developed in the late nineteenth century. While certain sexual activities (most obviously sodomy, commonly interpreted as anal penetration) were criminalized, the homosexual person was not constituted in either cultural or legal understanding until well into the twentieth century. In The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton University Press, 2009), historian Margot Canaday argues, in fact, that the identity category of “homosexual” developed in symbiosis with the United States’ state-building activities to such an extent that it was, in part, the legal conception of homosexual persons that led to the mid-century emergence of our modern-day gay or queer political identities:

An increasingly invasive state would in time also help to create rights consciousness for some queer individuals who, embracing the state’s own emphasis on legal rather than medical categories, began to ask not whether they might be sick, but whether they might be citizens. They came to agree with the state’s simple common sense definition of homosexuality, then, but could see less and less that was commonsensical about its placement outside national citizenship (254).

This is a fascinating argument, well-grounded in historical evidence. Canaday’s footnotes exhaustively document the hours she spent in the National Archives reading through years worth of military court marshals, personnel files, proceedings from immigration hearings, congressional records, and Works Progress Administration memoranda. What this detailed historical research reveals is how much our “common sense definition of homosexuality” was created through a process of trial and error, through attempts to police the bodies and social lives of those individuals coded undesirable. In example, let me glean from Canaday’s evidence a few instances of such creation that I found particularly delightful and thought-provoking.

First, in her chapter on immigration and “perverse” bodies during the first quarter of the twentieth century, Canaday discovered in reading INS records that aliens were generally turned away at the border or deported not for homosexual acts but for gender non-conformity.  This is merely the most recent book in my readings on the history and politics of sex and gender that has made me think about how much policing of our sexual lives speaks to a (larger?) fear of bodies that fail to fit our ever-changing yet stubbornly dualistic notions of appropriate gender performance. As Tanya Erzen observes in her study of ex-gay conversion therapy literature, for people and institutions concerned with gender role divisions, same-sex sexual behavior becomes a marker of gender inversion or confusion, rather than something of primary concern. That is, a woman who has sex with another woman is worrying because she is becoming masculine or enacting a “male” role. Not because she’s enjoying same-sex sex in and of itself.

Along similar lines, Canaday suggests that those policing same-sex sexual acts among men in the military, particularly during the early years of the twentieth century, distinguished between men who penetrated during sex (the “male” role) and men who were — willingly or unwillingly — penetrated either orally or anally (the “female” role). Rather than imagining lovemaking as a more fluid series of encounters in which one might penetrate and be penetrated in turn, military police imagined that men’s sexual identities were constituted and static. To some extent, they were following the lead of the men whose activities they were punishing, since barracks culture appears to have encouraged the tom/bottom hierarchical dynamic. However, Canaday’s narrative suggests that the policing of same-sex sex, and the differential punishment meted out according to who fucked whom reinforced the notion that what one did somehow followed from (or led to) who one was. It made me wonder if, in these military proceedings, we were seeing the nascent beginnings of our modern-day notion (in some circles) that gay men are either “tops” or “bottoms.”

While the military was fairly clear about the illegality of same-sex acts between men (though their policing of such activity was uneven), some of the most hilarious passages in the book deal with the inability of military police to agree on what exactly women do together when making love. The perplexity with which society responds to lesbian sex never fails to amuse me. Is it really that difficult to understand? Seriously? Like — clits and tongues and fingers and natural lubricant? Hello? But apparently, for mid-century MPs, women doing it was just beyond the realm of possibility. When, in 1952, two military police on patrol happened across two women having energetic oral sex in the back of a vehicle, they were so “bewildered” by what was happening that they turned and went away in “shock.” “It was just one of those things that you read about and hear about but never see,” one of the MPs admitted during testimony when asked why the incident had gone unreported (191-192). Because of this mystification of female sexuality, Canaday demonstrates, the anti-gay purges of women in the military relied not on evidence of acts (as it did with men) but on extensive documentation of women’s homosociality, emotional ties, and gender performance. Canaday observes that, while men and women alike were harassed during the lavender scare (see David K. Johnson), discharge files for men are typically 1/4-1/2 inch thick while women’s routinely run 2-3 inches. Not a commentary on the relative suffering of men and women accused of homosexuality, this difference represents the comparable difficulty of evidence gathering when what you’re trying to document is something as nebulous as tendencies and identities rather than trying to answer the question of whether so-and-so gave John Smith a blow job.

Finally, in her two chapters on the Depression-era welfare state, Canaday explores the long-term effects of structuring the social safety net in such a way as to reinforce the heteronormative family. A precursor to the destructive obsession with marriage as an alternative to unemployment and welfare benefits, federal programs targeting the unemployed and itinerant in the 1930s, and the benefits of the G.I. Bill post-WWII, became tied to an individual’s ability and/or willingness to fulfill a role (mother, father, husband, wife, son, daughter) within the ideal “straight” family. While this had little per se to do with one’s sexual identity, it had everything to do with domesticating individual human beings whose free-floating sexual desires were closely associated with criminality. Work programs for unemployed men, for example, often included some sort of requirement that the individual’s monthly allotment be sent to a designated “dependent,” usually a family member along the order of a parent, a wife, or children (118). Some “unattached” men were able to work around this requirement by designating a male friend as their dependent, but overall the government structured twentieth-century benefits schemes to encourage hetero-familial ties and discourage both sustained single-ness and unorthodox relationships. In the postwar era, this structural dis-incentive was joined by overt discrimination as those who had been discharged from the military for homosexuality were denied veterans benefits and experienced widespread stigma and economic hardship for suspected or actual same-sex attractions, behavior, and relationships.

Overall, Canaday’s study is one of the most impressive examples of historical inquiry into sex and gender that I’ve read in recent years, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the historical context of our present-day notions of gender, sex, sexual orientation, and citizenship.

Cross-posted at the feminist librarian.

In which the subtext becomes text.

“Vocation is the place where your greatest gifts meet the world’s greatest suffering.” – Frederick Beucher

I caught this article over at On The Issue Magazine; it argues against the importance that many in the queer community have placed on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Considering how unpopular the current wars are, I question why the right to serve openly in the military is at the forefront of LGBT activism. Why are gays and lesbians eager to join an institution that has traditionally upheld the rigid gender roles against which the LGBT movement has been rebelling? Why seek membership in an institution that takes advantage of the poor to fight battles that serve the goals of the elite? And what of the civilians whose rights are infringed and cast aside by a U.S. invasion? – are we trading their civil rights for our own?

I have a lot of concerns with this article.  My primary issue is the way that the author seems to be arguing that there is only one way to be gay.  The kind of “gay” (or QUILTBAG) person who conforms to all of the culturally-defined characteristics of the queer community.  Call me crazy, but that seems about as as rigid as boot camp.

Ironically, the author of this article argues that queer folks who support the repeal of DADT and/or the military are trying to “assimilate” into heterosexual culture.  As opposed to the assimilation one’s political/cultural opinions into the author’s own? Are we on an episode of “the right way to be gay?”

I’m attracted to sentiments from queer liberationists, who are against the repeal of DADT because they are anti-military. Queer liberationism teaches that queer issues should be examined not just as they relate to the LGBT population, but to all aspects of social justice. This view is in opposition to gay assimilation, which seeks to normalize queerness and codify LGBT people as the same as their heterosexual friends and family. By striving for blanket acceptance, gay assimillationists fail to analyze the implications of participating in certain institutions — achieving sameness is the most important goal.

It seems to me that “gay assimilation” is working both ways.  It also, of course, assumes that queer folks couldn’t possibly have legitimate reasons for joining the military.  I would say that a queer person joining the military is about as far from “achieving sameness” as you can get. 

One of the most glaringly flaws in this article is that the author FAILS TO INTERROGATE WHY PEOPLE JOIN THE MILITARY. Yes, it is about honor and serving one’s country, and those are reasons I very, very much respect.  But guess what?  It’s about money, too. And here we get into the realities of “gay assimilation” – the notion that all QUILTBAGS folks are middle-to-upper-class.  Guess what, they’re not!  You heard it here first – the gays can be poor!  Joining the military is a way to escape poverty and has been for years, in poor communities it can often be the best choice available.  Guess what?  The military pays for you  to go to college!  And I know a lot of people who chose it for that reason.  Not everyone can pay for college or take on crushing student loan debt.  Guess what else?  The military trains you in incredibly well in many, many fields – training that will make you a VERY competitive candidate when you reenter the civilian job market.  

I know a lot of people in the military.  I know gay people in the military and I know QUILTBAG folks who support the military.  I know gay people from military families.  I know gay people with aunts, uncles, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children, oh, and friends who are active duty military.  I also know aunts, uncles, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children, and friends who have loved ones that are gay and in the military. 

I guess what it comes down to, in my mind, is the cruelty of double exile.  And what I mean by that is this: lots of QUILTBAG folks are without the community that they had from birth.  Some people retain relationships family and old friends… lots don’t.  People make new, chosen families…how terrible to reject them once again because they believe in the wrong causes, work for the wrong people, or in some other way transgress the fluid boundaries of their chosen community.

I’m not going to get into how I feel about the military.  And my point is that no one has the right to tell you how to feel about it either.  My legitimacy to claim any type of expression, self-indentity, or community as my own is not and should not be dependent on me choosing the “right” political views, the “right” career, the “right” faith, or the “right” life. My hope for the QUILTBAG community(ities) is that it will never be a gated one and no one will have to provide their credentials upon arrival.

Image Via.

Cross-posted at Oh my sainted Aunt!

“The Defense of Marriage Act and current benefit laws do not allow the Department of Defense to extend many key benefits—including dependent medical coverage, dependent-rate BAH, and dependent-based travel and transportation allowances—to a Service member in a relationship with a same-sex partner.”

—Department of Defense, Support Plan for Implementation: Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

The military is a giant, overwhelming huge bureaucracy. It lives and dies by paperwork. Nothing is official unless it is documented in sixteen places with sixteen different signatures. Because of that, the service member is the only person in the family that the bureaucracy acknowledges. I do not exist as an individual to the military; I exist as Dependent 1 of my husband. My older son is Dependent 2 and my younger son is Dependent 3. All the benefits we receive as dependents of my husband are based on the paperwork that ties us to him. My sons have birth certificates. I have a marriage certificate.

Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex partners do not have a marriage certificate… or at least they don’t have a marriage certificate that the military is allowed to acknowledge. That is a very bad thing if you love someone who is a member of the military.

I’m going to break down that quote from the top of this post because it is riddled with military jargon. It’s not just the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits same-sex partners from receiving benefits; it is also current military law. And Congress sets military law. Congress has decided that many of the ‘key benefits’ can only be extended to married partners.  If you are a girlfriend/fiancée/life partner the military doesn’t care—you don’t count.

Now what are those ‘key benefits’?  First and most important is the ability to be entered into the DEERS database. Once you are in DEERS you are eligible for an ID card that allows you access to military instillations (bases). If you cannot get an ID card you cannot come onto base without being in the same car as a service member or meeting a service member at the Visitor’s Center and getting a visitor’s pass. So, basically, without an ID card you can’t just show up at your loved one’s office… which isn’t the end of the world but can sure be annoying if you want to meet for lunch or do any type of carpooling.

However, the bigger issue with not having an ID card is that the ID card is also your insurance card. No ID card, no health insurance or “dependent health coverage” as the quote above states.

The other big problem with no ID card and no access to the base is that you cannot live on base. But on top of not letting you live on base, same-sex couples will also not be allowed “dependant-rate BAH”.  BAH stands for Basic Allowance for Housing. Service members who live on base have their BAH sent directly to the base housing company. Service members who live off-base get their BAH each month as a part of their paycheck. Any service member who lives off-base gets BAH… but a member with dependents can get up to several hundred dollars more a month than a member without any dependents.

The obvious response to this is that it sucks and is unfair but that a service member’s same-sex partner should just work. Two incomes are better than one with a few bonuses and the partner should make sure their job provides health coverage.

But what about that third “key benefit”? What about “dependent-based travel and transportation allowances”?

This will probably come as a shock to no one, but being in the military means moving a lot. The military is trying to save money by moving people around less but that just means a move every three years instead of every two. If a service member retires, that means they served for twenty years. Twenty divided by three is six. When service members move a family, they get reimbursed for moving expenses including a small daily food allowance for each dependent. A family also gets a larger amount of household goods moved than a single member. Imagine moving six times and only being reimbursed for half of it.

Now imagine moving six times and being told that you get no benefits and each time you move you have to find a job with health insurance. And, the resume you have to job hunt with is now full of jobs you’ve only held for two or three years before you moved… again.

Now imagine you are told your service member is being sent overseas for their next assignment. When this happened to me, we had to fill out some additional paperwork but then my sons and I got listed on my husband’s orders.  Once we were on his orders we got special passports. Once our passports had arrived, we applied for and were quickly granted special visas to live in our new host country for the duration of my husband’s overseas tour. We were able to move because we are dependents. Same-sex partners of service members will not have any of these benefits. A same-sex partner will only be able to move overseas with their service member if they apply through normal channels. How easy do you think it will be for a single person with no job to go to and no family to live with (technically) to get a foreign visa?

There is actually some good news for same-sex partners now that DADT is on it’s way into the dustbin of history, service members will now be able to provide some benefits to their same-sex partner. Service members will be able to list their same-sex partner as the beneficiary of their life insurance and death gratuity. They will also be able to choose their same-sex partner as the first person to contact should they die, be injured or go missing along with appointing their same-sex partner as their caregiver in case of injury.

You probably noticed that none of those benefits come into play until the worst has happened. To add to that, same-sex partners will not officially be considered widow/ers and will be denied all access to the benefits that make the transition easier for gold star families such as priority in federal hiring.

Basically what it boils down to is this: gay and lesbian service members are now allowed to love and live openly but is still incredibly hard for them to maintain a long term relationship because of the structural problems involved. The single biggest problem is the Defense of Marriage Act that excludes same-sex partners from most of the benefits given to married military couples.

We have to keep fighting for full and equal marriage. Gay and lesbian service members won’t really be equal to their peers until we do. Or, as the Department of Defense’s Support Plan for Implementation states, “The national debate on same-sex marriage and partner benefits is ongoing, and the judicial and legislative landscape is in a state of flux.  It is possible that, in the future, additional policy options may be available.”