A band of brothers rising up to liberate an enslaved nation from political tyranny. Military prowess wrapped in old-world glory, painted with a special forces brush, and shipped out on a heading that would forever change the face of warfare. The setting is ancient Thebes. A city-state regarded as the most powerful martial force in the world. Trumping even the Spartans in bravery, in vigor, and in skill, the single regiment responsible for their success is recognized today by civilians as it will one day be by historians and poets. Their battles will lead to a revolution in military tactics. Their devotion will become the measuring stick for the armies of the future. And when they die, their enemies will salute them with respect, erect monuments to their valor, and issue this warning to any who would scorn their methods, “Perish miserably, they who think that these men did or suffered aught disgraceful.”
They are the Sacred Band of Thebes, a core group of fighters comprised entirely of homosexual couples.
I’m sure you can guess where this is going.
More than 2300 years later, with America's healthcare debate (possibly) in its death throes, our focus as a nation shifts to yet another polarizing topic: the potential repeal of our military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy prohibiting openly gay servicemen and women from serving in the armed forces. A grudging compromise between then-president Bill Clinton, the Department of Defense, and an oppositional Congress, the bill was a response to the brutal murder of gay U.S. Navy petty officer Allen R. Schindler, Jr; an effort to prevent the harassment and cruel treatment of soldiers based on sexual orientation while still recognizing that homosexuality innately creates "an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
Though the magnanimous nature of this bill still escapes me (and probably you as well), no doubt many Americans see it as a good thing that our nation stands alone among the western and the wealthy as one that openly discriminates against military personnel. A divide in psychology, perhaps. But any honest debate on the exclusion of homosexuals for the betterment of cohesion has long been settled in the psychological field, as empirical evidence fails to show that "sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness; including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention" (Belkin, 2003; Belkin & Bateman, 2003; Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996; MacCoun, 1996; National Defense Research Institute, 1993). Comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments show likewise that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is "no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness" (Belkin & McNichol, 2000–2001; Gade, Segal, & Johnson, 1996; Koegel, 1996).
So if it bears no impact on our armed forces... If to quote Consul David Saranga (on the issue of Israel’s policy allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military) it is a “non-issue”... If you can be "a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time”... what it is that really drives the dispute? What has allowed a glaring oversight in civil rights – and a sinkhole of wasted military funds – to continue for so many years unchecked?
Luckily, we’ve a plethora of religious leaders and conservative pundits to answer that question.
Homosexuality is immoral, they tell us. Allowing it to take place among our soldiers, the targets of hyper-masculinized ideals and textbook “alpha-dog” reverence, is simply unthinkable.
Let’s think about it, regardless.
Since its inception in 1993, DADT has been cited in the discharge of more than 13,000 troops. 619 of these discharges took place in 2008. The same year, more than 3000 military women were raped by their fellow servicemen. And those are just the ones we know about. The Pentagon estimates that 80% to 90% of sexual assaults go unreported – understandable, when you consider that only 8% of military cases end in prosecution (compared to 40% in civilian cases). 80% of those convicted are honorably discharged, despite their crimes. What this means is that, in 2008, 619 soldiers were dismissed from dedicated service to their country for non-criminal acts, while more than 2760 identified rapists (and a potential thousands more unidentified) were allowed to remain in that service. Give a moment for the math to set in.
What does it say about our moral view in terms of military operation when a soldier is more likely to be discharged for loving a fellow serviceman than for assaulting one?
Maybe ancient Thebes had it right all along.
A prominent Greek military figure, Epaminondas, considered the greatest warrior-statesmen of his time, and a member of the Sacred Band of Thebes, is noted by historians as having two male lovers: Asopichus and Caphisodorus. Caphisodorus died with him in a battle at Mantineia. They were buried together, something usually reserved for a husband and wife in Greek society.
Historian Plutarch later wrote that the formation of the Sacred Band may have been inspired by the words of Plato in his work Symposium:
“And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other's side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger?”
