. . . It both saddens and scares me that an organization . . . would endorse such hateful, anti-homosexual, gay-bashing propaganda . . .

Writing - Military

Gay bashing in Gazette goes too far

In its Autumn 2000 issue, the Marine Corps League magazine published a guest editorial that vehemently blasted homosexual lifestyles. The editorialist, retired Marine Colonel John Greenwood, noted that the "vast majority" of Marines regard homosexuality as "unnatural, humiliating, repulsive behavior . . . ,[O]ften spread by a group that seeks to prey on impressionable, vulnerable youth." In conclusion, the author noted that Americans should move together to curb homosexuality and the evils it brings to the world.

It is not surprising, given the official stances of such Marine-oriented magazines as the Marine Corp Gazette and the Marine Corps League, that most rank and file Marines jump on the anti-homosexual bandwagon. However, the logic behind the editorial's anti-homosexual stance was badly frayed. For example, the author did not make any mention of the violence perpetrated on homosexuals, frequently by members of the military. Nor did Colonel Greenwood, when discussing repulsive sexual behavior and vulnerable youths, see fit to mention the hordes of impoverished teenage prostitutes that make their living from heterosexual servicemembers, often Marines, on liberty in third world countries. Further, the Colonel did not find any room in his editorial to note the many accomplishments of gays in America's military, from Washington's Continental Army to today's multi-service force. And while the author noted that "[p]eer pressures, rules, customs mean little" to the homosexual, he did not discuss the massive amounts of infidelity amongst married servicemembers. In short, all of Colonel Greenwood's arguments are applicable to both homosexuals and heterosexuals, yet the Colonel only applies them to the former.

It is true that military service, with its lack of personal privacy, poses unique challenges that probably preclude an open and active homosexual lifestyle. However, these points could have been made in a much less pejorative fashion than that used in this editorial, perhaps even leading to constructive dialogue between various interested parties. It both saddens and scares me that an organization devoted to upholding the honorable traditions of the Marine Corps would endorse such hateful, anti-homosexual, gay-bashing propaganda.

December 2000