# Question Related to Society's Perception of Gay people in the '90s and military



## masontrc

I'm writing a novel that involves the protagonist whose parents kept a secret from him about his brother being gay even long after his death. As a part of the process, I am researching information about society's attitude toward homosexuality in the '90s and in the military at the time.  While I was alive in the '90s (born in 1988 ) I wasn't old enough to be aware of those issues at the time. 

I'm wondering if you know of any resources or personal experience/memories that you have that can help me make this aspect of my novel as accurate as possible.


----------



## Bayview

Is this in the US, or somewhere else? And roughly what kind of people are you working with? (Like, conservative Christians vs. liberal college students vs. rock'n'roll stars vs...)


----------



## masontrc

Bayview said:


> Is this in the US, or somewhere else? And roughly what kind of people are you working with? (Like, conservative Christians vs. liberal college students vs. rock'n'roll stars vs...)



The story is based in suburban Connecticut. The parents are conservative Christians, so that's easy to work with in terms of establishing their views, but I'm not sure about the attitude of suburban America in general at the time. I found some polls indicating that America collectively opposed gay marriage at the time, but sure how that breaks down geographically.


----------



## Bayview

I'm Canadian but I went to school in the '90s with a lot of Americans from Maine, New Jersey, Vermont... and, strangely, Florida.

I'd say that their attitudes then would definitely be considered homophobic by today's standards. We were all fairly liberal, but--not liberal enough. I think anyone coming out in our circle would have been ostracized--not with open cruelty, I don't think, but just--not invited out anymore.

Part of that is probably age-and-stage. A significant part of our social lives was based around hooking up, and if most people are straight, a gay person doesn't fit into their hook-up culture too well. But there was also something uglier, I'd say. I don't think any of us would have been openly cruel (and certainly not violent) but there was a lot of "othering" going on. Guys would insult other guys by implying that they were gay, etc.

I don't think we'd have considered ourselves homophobic. Probably the worst anyone would have gotten would have been something like "I don't have anything against gay people; I just don't want to hang out with them" and nobody would have responded to that with more than eye rolls.

If I'd been gay, I don't think I'd have been comfortable with my group, and I don't think my group would have been comfortable with me. Yikes.


----------



## Jack of all trades

The military had a zero tolerance for homosexuals until the "don't ask; don't tell" policy of Bill Clinton's administration. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell


----------



## bazz cargo

Judging by the level of homophobia that I come across on a daily basis things haven't changed all that much. You can also include racism, anti Jewish bias and misogyny. 

Good luck
BC


----------



## Shemp

Bayview's statement resonates with me

_I don't think we'd have considered ourselves homophobic. Probably the worst anyone would have gotten would have been something like "I don't have anything against gay people; I just don't want to hang out with them"....._

I believe a lot of men thought that, anyway.  Women were, as a group, probably a little more accepting than men, IMO.

Also FYI Connecticut is a blue state, voting Democratic in every presidential election since 1992.

http://www.270towin.com/states/Connecticut

If the parents were conservative Christians, their views may have been out of step with the majority of people in their community.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Shemp said:


> Bayview's statement resonates with me
> 
> _I don't think we'd have considered ourselves homophobic. Probably the worst anyone would have gotten would have been something like "I don't have anything against gay people; I just don't want to hang out with them"....._
> 
> I believe a lot of men thought that, anyway.  Women were, as a group, probably a little more accepting than men, IMO.
> 
> Also FYI Connecticut is a blue state, voting Democratic in every presidential election since 1992.
> 
> http://www.270towin.com/states/Connecticut
> 
> If the parents were conservative Christians, their views may have been out of step with the majority of people in their community.[/
> SIZE]




Haven't Christians been the slowest to tolerate homosexuals? So... if the community avoided homosexuals, what did conservative Christians do?


----------



## Space Cadet

-


----------



## Jack of all trades

Space Cadet said:


> -



Sorry if I offended you. I am perhaps thinking of more vocal members of the Christian groups. Naturally I am aware that there are always those who are less noticed that don't fit the stereotype.


----------



## Winston

The US military is generally "conservative".  Contrary to what many of you think conservative means, one of the tenants of Conservatism is that established institutions and traditions should not be changed arbitrarily for political reasons.  
There have been homosexuals serving in every military worldwide throughout recorded history.  Any honest historian will tell you (Hell, Alexander The Great?).
But the movement in the 1990's to "allow" gays in the military was seen by many as political theater.  Most high-ranking officers resisted, seeing the move as having no benefit for morale and readiness, and only an attempt at political pandering. Everyone KNEW that there were already gays in the military.  Codifying it was political grandstanding in their view.   
Most military leaders are not religious ideologes, nor politically shrewd manipulators of public opinion.  They simply want to do their job, and save soldier's lives.

So, if you're considering some goofy cabal of Generals and Jerry Fallwell conspiring to keep homosexuals out of the US Armed Forces,  you are way off.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Winston said:


> The US military is generally "conservative".  Contrary to what many of you think conservative means, one of the tenants of Conservatism is that established institutions and traditions should not be changed arbitrarily for political reasons.
> There have been homosexuals serving in every military worldwide throughout recorded history.  Any honest historian will tell you (Hell, Alexander The Great?).
> But the movement in the 1990's to "allow" gays in the military was seen by many as political theater.  Most high-ranking officers resisted, seeing the move as having no benefit for morale and readiness, and only an attempt at political pandering. Everyone KNEW that there were already gays in the military.  Codifying it was political grandstanding in their view.
> Most military leaders are not religious ideologes, nor politically shrewd manipulators of public opinion.  They simply want to do their job, and save soldier's lives.
> 
> So, if you're considering some goofy cabal of Generals and Jerry Fallwell conspiring to keep homosexuals out of the US Armed Forces,  you are way off.




But before the "don't ask; don't tell" policy, anyone who was suspected of being homosexual was dishonorably discharged, I believe. So the policy was more than some political maneuver.


----------



## TheGlawackus

Having just looked at your excerpt not too long ago, let me see if I can help.  Arnold, the brother, seems to have kept the secret from the parents due to their Christian beliefs. The way Christians are in Connecticut though is going to be different from other parts of the country, even during the '90s. You have to be careful about that. As for the gay in the military element, I'm not sure how you are going to tie this in but anyone in the military would have had to keep it a secret from almost anyone.  

For further reading-
1. Our Time: Breaking the Silence of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by Josh Seefried.
2. Sexual orientation discrimination has only been prohibited in Connecticut since 1991. So that means that there was still a serious problem in the state about gays being discriminated against. -"Connecticut State Passes Law Protecting Gay Rights"


----------



## Winston

Jack of all trades said:


> But before the "don't ask; don't tell" policy, anyone who was suspected of being homosexual was dishonorably discharged, I believe. So the policy was more than some political maneuver.



Everyone drives 70 on a freeway clearly marked 60 MPH.  No one enforces that infraction because there is no immediate danger to other motorists.
That law in the '90s and earlier did not result in the wholesale expulsion of gay military members.  The only times that section of the UCMJ was enforced was when other factors (such as espionage) were in play.  Why would any commander just wake up one morning and decide to reduce his troop levels by 5%?   

In those rare circumstances when a soldier was discharged for "being homosexual", it was usually a General or Other Than Honorable (OTH) Discharge.  NOT Dishonorable.   

And, you don't keep "secrets" bunking with 30 other men.  It just doesn't happen.  Our 2nd Squad Leader went to the Hollywood YMCA every chance he could.  He was a good man, no one in our platoon messed with him.  Our Navy Corpsman was effeminate,  soft-spoken and probably gay-er than a Judy Garland Fan Club.  No one asked because it wasn't our business.  He kept up on every forced march and field op. If I got shot, I knew he'd be there to patch me up.  

The military I was in wasn't pro or anti gay.  It was pro "killin' the bad guys".  We were united in that goal, despite proto SJW's trying to cause divisions where there were none.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Winston said:


> Everyone drives 70 on a freeway clearly marked 60 MPH.  No one enforces that infraction because there is no immediate danger to other motorists.
> That law in the '90s and earlier did not result in the wholesale expulsion of gay military members.  The only times that section of the UCMJ was enforced was when other factors (such as espionage) were in play.  Why would any commander just wake up one morning and decide to reduce his troop levels by 5%?
> 
> In those rare circumstances when a soldier was discharged for "being homosexual", it was usually a General or Other Than Honorable (OTH) Discharge.  NOT Dishonorable.
> 
> And, you don't keep "secrets" bunking with 30 other men.  It just doesn't happen.  Our 2nd Squad Leader went to the Hollywood YMCA every chance he could.  He was a good man, no one in our platoon messed with him.  Our Navy Corpsman was effeminate,  soft-spoken and probably gay-er than a Judy Garland Fan Club.  No one asked because it wasn't our business.  He kept up on every forced march and field op. If I got shot, I knew he'd be there to patch me up.
> 
> The military I was in wasn't pro or anti gay.  It was pro "killin' the bad guys".  We were united in that goal, despite proto SJW's trying to cause divisions where there were none.



The picture you paint is very different from the one painted in this article from 1990.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/10/u...ers-sailors-lives-secrecy.html?pagewanted=all

For reference, what was/is the time period of your service?


----------



## Bayview

As I understand it there was also a lot of variation in how the rule was imposed. If someone was lucky enough to have a non-bigoted commanding officer, s/he could be fine. But if the CO was prejudiced there were tools available for that prejudice to be exercised.

I can't think of any reason why there would be FEWER bigots in the military than in the general population. So the chances were pretty good that at least some gay soldiers dealt with bigots, and the official rules were a tool those bigots could use.


----------



## Winston

Jack of all trades said:


> ...For reference, what was/is the time period of your service?



The NYT is adequate for lining canary cages and wrapping day old fish.  Nothing more.  
That wasn't some "picture" I painted.  It was my life.  A bit before the OP's timeframe, 1984-1989.  United States Marine Corps.
I know that my first-hand account doesn't fit most folks narrative of a homophobic pogrom .  Not my problem.  

Our Battalion had about 500 Marines in it.  I served there for four years.  Never heard of ONE Marine discharged for being gay. 
(unless, it's some hush-hush cover-up.  Shhhhhh...)
Seriously, when is the last time you can honestly say a bunch of 19-20 year olds able to keep a secret?  Like covering-up a scandalous discharge...


----------



## Jack of all trades

Bayview said:


> As I understand it there was also a lot of variation in how the rule was imposed. If someone was lucky enough to have a non-bigoted commanding officer, s/he could be fine. But if the CO was prejudiced there were tools available for that prejudice to be exercised.
> 
> I can't think of any reason why there would be FEWER bigots in the military than in the general population. So the chances were pretty good that at least some gay soldiers dealt with bigots, and the official rules were a tool those bigots could use.




Precisely!


----------



## Jack of all trades

Winston said:


> The NYT is adequate for lining canary cages and wrapping day old fish.  Nothing more.
> That wasn't some "picture" I painted.  It was my life.  A bit before the OP's timeframe, 1984-1989.  United States Marine Corps.
> I know that my first-hand account doesn't fit most folks narrative of a homophobic pogrom .  Not my problem.
> 
> Our Battalion had about 500 Marines in it.  I served there for four years.  Never heard of ONE Marine discharged for being gay.
> (unless, it's some hush-hush cover-up.  Shhhhhh...)
> Seriously, when is the last time you can honestly say a bunch of 19-20 year olds able to keep a secret?  Like covering-up a scandalous discharge...



Are you saying the court cases didn't happen?

For some, there must have been at least an element of truth.


----------



## Jack of all trades

To clarify my thoughts on the issue : 
I think the majority of those in all the branches of the armed forces are brave individuals who sacrifice and give of themselves to protect the nation and its citizens. They are to be admired. However, every organization has bad apples, and the larger the organization, the more bad apples. So it is certainly within the realm of possibility that those few may have taken advantage of the rules and climate.

Should there be a book depicting one of those few? That's for the one with the story idea to decide, not me.


----------



## sas

I am amazed that the fear of AIDS has not been mentioned. It was not well recognized until mid-80s, and most were ignorant of how transmitted, or preferred their own prejudice about how. The 80s & 90s were rife with misinformation. To not mention it would be remiss.


----------



## Space Cadet

Jack of all trades said:


> Sorry if I offended you. I am perhaps thinking of more vocal members of the Christian groups. Naturally I am aware that there are always those who are less noticed that don't fit the stereotype.




No, Jack.  You absolutely didn't offend me.  In fact, I found this to be such an interesting thread, I wanted to chime in albeit a bit too early.  I think I went on a rant about researching the gay culture pre-90s (in the 80s) to determine the 90s culture or attitude about gay members of society and then came back to my post to realize it was a free write/rant or jumble of facts that perhaps did not help answer your question.  I subsequently erased my post and replaced it with a dash.  

But I recall that my free write had a vague theory that the 80s determined the 90s perception of gay culture.  Thank you for starting this thread, Jack of all trades.


----------



## Space Cadet

sas said:


> I am amazed that the fear of AIDS has not been mentioned. It was not well recognized until mid-80s, and most were ignorant of how transmitted, or preferred their own prejudice about how. The 80s & 90s were rife with misinformation. To not mention it would be remiss.



Very true.  The fact Reagan didn't address it in the early to mid 80s was a huge downfall and cost many lives.


----------



## sas

Thank you, Cadet. Yes, Reagan was responsible for the needless deaths of many. I have never forgotten this. Too bad others have.


----------



## Space Cadet

Yes, and just some additions, to keep to the protagonist rag, and at the same time _being_ rebellious:  captivate the fear....


----------



## Jack of all trades

Space Cadet said:


> No, Jack.  You absolutely didn't offend me.  In fact, I found this to be such an interesting thread, I wanted to chime in albeit a bit too early.  I think I went on a rant about researching the gay culture pre-90s (in the 80s) to determine the 90s culture or attitude about gay members of society and then came back to my post to realize it was a free write/rant or jumble of facts that perhaps did not help answer your question.  I subsequently erased my post and replaced it with a dash.
> 
> But I recall that my free write had a vague theory that the 80s determined the 90s perception of gay culture.  Thank you for starting this thread, Jack of all trades.



Well, I'm not the OP, but I'm glad you weren't offended.


----------



## armoredtree

I grew up in Connecticut until age 9, and came out in the mid-90s to my family and close friends.  I was still an adolescent, but my family was curious and I was pretty open with people I trusted.  It wasn't an easy time to come out. The acceptance of gay people wasn't mainstream at that point, and god forbid you were queer or demisexual or some other permutation of sexuality. There was always a radical justice element in society that was pushing for acknowledgment, but to survey most of society in the US in the 90s, you'd not find wholesale tolerance to be the norm, I think.  I was in Los Angeles, CA when I came out, so a fairly liberal and diverse culture, far more so than in Connecticut.  That said, I cannot contribute to the military knowledge, as I don't really know about that.


----------

