February 8, 2010
Admiral Mike Mullen, USN
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20318-9999
Dear Admiral Mullen:
This letter is in response to your shocking statement last
week that you advocate homosexuals openly serving in the military
services. I seriously question the wisdom of your position. As I have
previously written by my Senator, Harry Reid, and my Congresswoman, Dina
Titus, the position appears to be more a matter of Democratic party
voter pandering than the solution to a valid military issue. Perhaps it
was your willingness to support the Democratic agenda that earned you
your present position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I am a retired Navy Captain. I enlisted in the Navy in
1948, and served as a Yeoman, Personnelman, Journalist, and
Communications Technician, and, as a Petty Officer First Class, received
a commission in 1955 through the Integration Program. In my more than
31 years of active duty, I commanded two ships, served as Executive
Officer on two ships, commanded Coastal Squadron ONE (Swift Boats) in
Vietnam, and was Chief Staff Officer on an Amphibious Squadron. I
developed the first Human Affairs Council in a Pacific Fleet ship in
1972, and supervised human affairs activities on seven PHIBRON ships. I
am a graduate of the School of Naval Justice, the Management Course at
the Navy Postgraduate School, and the Senior Officer course at the Naval
War College. After retirement I received a Juris Doctorate from the
Hastings College of Law. Like you, I encountered homosexuals throughout
my Navy career and in civilian life. Unlike you, I do not find they are
more deserving than non-homosexuals or that they constitute a viable or
necessary body of troops for the defense of our country.
My experience is Naval. I can’t speak for the Army, Air
Force, or Marine Corps. Those services are generally based ashore with
nearby civilian communities. In such communities, homosexuals may be
able to find sexual gratification without interfering with military
duties. But the best analogy to a ship at sea is a prison. There is no
other outlet for sexual drives and I know of no prison in the United
States that assigns males and females, or who intentionally assign known
homosexuals, to the same cell. That is one of the differences between
your position and mine.
During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a
clumsy lot. They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an
engineroom ladder. Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall”
overboard. The crew had a way of policing themselves to eliminate
homosexual advances. Perhaps you are correct in your assumption that
military personnel are more liberal today, but I would look very closely
at prevalent attitudes before I closed the book on the issue.
It has been my experience that if sexual favors are
available aboard ship, some enterprising sailor, petty officer, or
officer will find a way to take advantage of the offer. There is
usually a senior/junior relationship in such exchanges and the senior
partner will reward the junior with preferential treatment, such as duty
assignments, watches, leave, liberty, and advancement. Such
preferential treatment can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends
to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale. If a Chief
Petty Officer, for example, is having sexual relations with a non-rated
sailor, it will have an adverse impact on those petty officers between
the two in the chain of command. Because of your current assertions, I
must assume that you were either lucky and didn’t have the problem
during your shipboard assignments, or that you chose to ignore them!
That sexual misconduct in the Navy exists to this day is
obvious. I recall that a lesbian ring was discovered on the USS NORTON
SOUND back in the late 60′s or early 70′s. At about the same time my
wife, now a retired Navy Commander, was Executive Officer at the WAVES
Barracks, Great Lakes Naval Training Center. She was aware of many
cases of homosexuality involving the WAVES assigned to the Barracks. I
also recall that one of the cruisers returning from the First Gulf War
reported 40% of the female crewmembers were pregnant after a six-month
deployment. Just recently I read that the Commanding Officer and
Command Master Chief were relieved from an Atlantic Fleet destroyer
because of fraternization between several Chief Petty Officers and
female members of the crew. Just the other day I heard news reports
that a birth control pill previously reserved for use by women in combat
had to be made available to all females in the military, clearly
implying that intercourse was occurring in combat units and such conduct
was known to unit commanders. Is there some reason you believe that
homosexual activity would not also occur or is not occurring?
As you should be aware, the Uniform Code of Military Justice
does not address homosexuality, per se. Article 125 provides that
sodomy is a felony, to be punished as a court martial may direct. But
the Article does not discriminate against homosexuals. Oral or anal sex
between persons of the same sex (homosexuals), opposite sex
(heterosexuals) or with animals (bestiality) are all considered
felonies. However, when the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was
established, it only applied to homosexual activities.
In all my years of service, I never encountered a Commanding
Officer who “asked” a subordinate if he was a homosexual. I never knew
of a sailor who was subjected to legal sanctions for homosexual conduct
without corroborating evidence. A “confession” was not enough.
Credible corroborating evidence had to exist and usually took the form
of testimony of a participating party.
So the “policy” of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” makes no sense at
all, except to create a means of ignoring the law. But the policy can
only be as effective as the individual’s discretion. As long as the
homosexual was discreet, nothing would happen to him. He could be
sanctioned only if he wanted to go public. However, by the same token,
if a heterosexual indiscreetly advised his Commanding Officer that he
had committed sodomy, he would be subject to the same sanctions.
In regard to heterosexual behavior, the UCMJ also proscribes
common law marriage under the heading of Unlawful Cohabitation (with or
without evidence of sexual intercourse). It sanctions adultery and
prostitution (for both the prostitute and the patron). In the case of
an officer, merely “consorting with a notorious prostitute” constitutes
an offense, again even without evidence of sexual intercourse. The
problem is that common law marriage is legal in 11 states and the
District of Columbia. I don’t believe that adultery is a criminal
offense in any state today. And in my home state of Nevada, even
prostitution is legal. I don’t recall you asking Congress to legalize
heterosexual sodomy, adultery, prostitution, or common law marriage.
There are many punitive articles in the UCMJ that have no relationship
to the satisfactory performance of military duties, yet you single out
homosexuals for preferred treatment. Again, I must ask “why?”.
The argument I hear most often expounded by the homophiles
is that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy deprives the military of
outstanding young men and women who want nothing more than to defend
their country and that they have the ability to operate a radar, or a
gas turbine, or a gun as well as a heterosexual. That can’t be true.
It isn’t the “policy”, it is Article 125 of the UCMJ that criminalizes
homosexual behavior since it would be virtually impossible to practice
homosexuality without committing sodomy. But, even if it were true, are
homosexuals really worth the administrative problems they would create
by their mere existence?
The Navy, today, does not willingly accept GED holders for
enlistment. Minor criminal records are a bar to enlistment. Visible
tattoos and piercings are not permitted. Are these aberrations more
damning than sodomy? Personnel may be denied reenlistment if they fail
to meet obesity standards. The young men and women denied naval service
because of these exclusionary conditions may also want to defend their
country and might also be able to satisfactorily operate a radar, or a
gas turbine, or a gun. But you are only advocating the acceptance of
homosexuals! Why is that, Admiral?
Is it your contention that cohabitors, adulterers,
prostitutes, young men and women with tattoos, those with only GEDs, or
the obese cannot serve as well as homosexuals? If so, what is your
empirical evidence to support such an argument. If we can sanction
heterosexual behavior, appearance, and alternative educations, why can’t
we sanction homosexual sodomists?
If we get to pick and choose which laws we uphold, which
laws are next on the line to ignore? Carnal Knowledge? I would think a
service man or woman who has sex with a minor (Carnal Knowledge) could
perform military duties as well, if not better, than a homosexual. At
least we don’t have children in combat, or in the military at large, for
them to accost. Their pedophilia would not impact on the performance of
military duties.
If you are successful in your endeavors to have Congress
modify the UCMJ, have you given any thought to the long-term
repercussions? When I joined the Navy, absence from duty because of
venereal disease, self-inflicted wounds, even severe sun burn, was
considered “Sick Misconduct”. We were not paid for the periods we were
absent from duty and our enlistments were extended on a day-for-day
basis. Since AIDS/HIV is more prevalent in the homosexual community
than in the heterosexual community, have you considered the consequences
of a homosexual serviceman contracting AIDS or HIV? Will the homosexual
with AIDS/HIV receive treatment from military sources? Will it be
considered a service-connected disability justifying a medical discharge
and retirement benefits? Will it result in Veterans Administration
disability benefits? And have you considered the likelihood that some
of the homosexuals will request sex change procedures? I know for a
fact that a significant percentage of my Law School class was undergoing
sex change therapy or surgery. It made using heads confusing for both
genders. Sex change is an issue being considered in civilian prisons
today and I’m not convinced that taxpayers, or military budgets, should
be burdened with that expense. But, if you really want homosexuals, you
should accept their baggage, as well and their bodies.
Do you also advocate same-sex marriage or “partnerships”?
Will the homosexual’s partner be entitled to dependents’ benefits,
including health care, BAQ, military base access, and commissary and
exchange privileges? Will they be entitled to military housing? Would
they be entitled to sex change procedures at government expense?
Would a homosexual openly serving on active duty in a
same-sex marriage be prosecuted for adultery if he or she has a sexual
relationship outside the marriage? Would a homosexual be prosecuted for
prostitution? Perhaps, in such cases, even you would reinstate the
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
I raise the last point because while serving as Executive
Officer on USS CATAMOUNT (LSD-17) in 1967, one of the Radarmen was
arrested by local police. While inventorying his personal effects a
photograph of the sailor performing fellatio on another male was
discovered. The police turned the photo over to the Shore Patrol, who
forwarded it to me. During an investigation it was determined that five
of the ship’s Radarmen were involved in a male prostitution ring. They
declared that while in Radarman Class “A” School at Treasure Island,
their instructors convinced them that they could augment their military
pay by providing homosexual services to gays in San Francisco. They
took advantage of the opportunity presented and continued such activity
in San Diego. CATAMOUNT sailed absent several Radarmen and the Class
“A” School lost several instructors. Are these otherwise competent
Radarmen the type of sailors you want on your ships? I hope not!
Your advocacy of gay rights reminds me of a joke popular in
the Australian Navy in the 1970′s. An officer with nearly 20 years
service transferred from the Royal Navy to the Royal Australian Navy.
When asked why, he stated that when he joined the Royal Navy,
homosexuality was a crime and that homosexuals received severe
punishment and discharge. After a few years he noticed that senior
officers were closing their eyes to the problem. Eventually, it was
made permissible. He decided to transfer before it became compulsory.
I think you are leading us down that road to compulsion, Admiral!
I fully realize that I should not judge you or your
procurement source. I have not walked the mile in your shoes. But, by
the same token, you have not walked a mile in mine. I hope that you
recognize that we are irreconcilably opposed on this issue, but I think
I have given it more thought than you. In retrospect, I now realize
that of all the officers I served with on active duty, Naval Academy
graduates were the most tolerant of homosexuals. It may only be
coincidence, but was there something in the curriculum that created such
tolerance? I am aware that there have been numerous scandals regarding
drug use, academic cheating, and heterosexual misconduct, but had never
before given much thought to their acceptance of homosexual behavior,
despite my awareness that there was a tendency toward an anal fixation.
I do hope that you conduct a thorough, in-depth evaluation
of this issue, and hope you reach a realistic final determination.
Assuming that your personal bias and the power of your office will
result in your victory, I will watch retention statistics with a
critical eye. Our sailors won’t have the option of transferring to the
Australian Navy.
In keeping with the requirements of Navy Regulations, I
submit this with all the respect your rank and position deserve.
With due respect;
Lawrence R. Jefferis
Captain, U. S. Navy (Ret.)
2016 Diamond Peak Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117
(702) 341-7617
jefferis@embarqmail.com
Russellville, AR
