Педерасты победили.

Though the survey results demonstrate a solid majority of Service members—around
70%—who predict mixed, positive, or no effects in the event of repeal,321 this percentage is
not uniform among all subgroups in the U.S. military. The percentages of those who predict
negative effects are higher in warfighting units.322 In response to question 68a, for example,
while only 30% the U.S. military as a whole predict negative or very negative effects on their
unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,”323 the percentage is 43% for the Marines
Corps, 48% within Army combat arms units, and 58% within Marine combat arms units.324
Particularly in this time of war, we made sure that warfighters in all Services were part of
our risk assessment process.

The percentages above reflect attitudes. Social science research tells us that attitudes,
which are often laden with emotion and misperception, are less valuable as predictors of
future behavior than actual experiences.325 Thus, in designing the survey we recognized that
an important component in assessing the impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was to
also focus on Service members’ actual past and present experiences in a unit with someone
they believed to be gay.

In response to question 34 of the survey, while 36% of the overall force stated they
are currently serving in a unit with someone they believe to be gay,326 only 20% of those in
Marine combat arms units and 27% of those in Army combat arms units answered that they
were serving with someone they believe to be gay.327 A similar distinction exists in response
to question 36, when it came to those who have ever at any point in their career served in a
unit with a co-worker they believed to be gay or lesbian. Thus, fewer Service members in
warfighting units have served with someone they believe to be gay, and more are left to only
imagine what service with an openly gay person would be like—the circumstance in which
misperceptions and stereotypes fill the void, for lack of actual experience.

However, when Service members in warfighting units who had served with someone
they believed to be gay or lesbian were asked to assess their actual experiences, the
distinctions in survey results between those in combat arms and the overall military are
almost non-existent. For example, for those who have had the experience of working with
someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, when asked to rate that unit’s “ability to work
together,” 92% of the overall military said the answer was “very good,” “good,” or “neither
good nor poor.”328 In response to that same question, the percentage is 89% for those in Army
combat arms units and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high
percentages.329

These survey results reveal to us a misperception that a gay man does not “fit” the
image of a good warfighter—a misperception that is almost completely erased when a gay
Service member is allowed to prove himself alongside fellow warfighters. Anecdotally, we
heard much the same. As one special operations force warfighter told us, “We have a gay
guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he
was gay.”330

The survey results also reveal that, within warfighting units, negative predictions
about serving alongside gays decrease when in “intense combat situations.” In response
to question 71a, for example, 67% of those in Marine combat arms units predict working
alongside a gay man or lesbian will have a negative or very negative effect on their unit’s
effectiveness in completing its mission “in a field environment or out at sea.”331 By contrast,
in response to the same question, but during “an intense combat situation,” the percentage
drops to 48%.332

Our judgment is that the levels of reluctance of gays to “out themselves” described in
the previous section, even if permitted by law, would be even higher in warfighting units.
This, coupled with the low number of gay men estimated to be in the military (relative
to their representation in civilian population),333 leads us to conclude that, if the law were
repealed, the change in culture and environment in warfighting units will be minimal.
For these reasons, we conclude that the risks of repeal within warfighting units of all
Services, while somewhat higher than the force generally, remain within acceptable levels
when coupled with our recommendations for implementation.

The reality is that gay men and lesbians are already serving in today’s military. The
other reality, revealed in the course of this review, is that much of the force recognizes
this. As the survey indicates, 36% believe they are currently serving in a unit with a gay or
lesbian Service member; 69% believe that, at some point in their career, they have served in a unit with a co-worker they believed to be gay or lesbian.316 But, a frequent response among
Service members at information forums, when asked about the widespread recognition that
gay men and lesbians are already in the military, is “yes, but I don’t know they are gay.” Put
another way, the concern with repeal among many is with “open” service.

In listening to Service members we found a perceptions gap—between the perception
of the gay Service member that people know and work with, and the perception of the
stereotypical gay individual that people do not know and have never worked with. When
Service members talk about a unit member they believe to be gay or lesbian, their assessment
of that individual was based on a complete picture and actual experience, including the
Service member’s technical and tactical capabilities and other characteristics that contribute
to his or her overall effectiveness as a member of the military and as a colleague.
By contrast, when asked about serving with the imagined gay Service member who is
“open” about his or her sexual orientation, that feature becomes the predominant if not sole
characteristic of the individual, and stereotypes fill in the rest of the picture. Stereotypes
motivated many of the comments we heard. The most prevalent concern expressed is that
gay men will behave in a stereotypically effeminate manner, while lesbian women are
stereotypically painted in “masculine” terms. We heard widespread perceptions that, if
permitted to be open and honest about their sexual orientation, gay Service members would
behave as sexual predators and make unwelcome sexual advances on heterosexuals, gay
men would adopt feminine behavior and dress, there would be open and notorious displays
of affection in the military environment between same-sex couples, and that repeal would
lead to an overall erosion of unit cohesion, morale, and good order and discipline. Based
on our review, however, we conclude that these concerns are exaggerated and not consistent
with the reported experiences of many Service members.

The perceptions gap we note here is also reflected in the survey data. The data reveals
that Service members who are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or
lesbian are less likely to perceive a negative impact of repeal on the key elements of unit
task and social cohesion, and unit effectiveness. Conversely, those who have believe they
have never served with someone who is gay or lesbian are more likely to perceive a negative
impact. Likewise, of Service members who believe they have in their career served in a unit
with a co-worker who is gay or lesbian, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together”
was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.”317

Thus, our view is that the negative perceptions and predictions of serving alongside
a gay Service member are refuted by the considerable track record of actual experiences
where Service members did exactly that.

In addition, we conclude that if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, there will not be a mass “coming out” of gay Service members, as some predict. We assess that, for the most
part and at least in the short term, gay Service members would continue to be selective
and discreet about whom they share information about their sexual orientation with, for
reasons having nothing to do with the law and everything to do with a sheer desire to fit in,
co-exist, and succeed in the military environment. This conclusion is also consistent with
the environment in civilian society, where no law requires gay men and lesbians to conceal
their sexual orientation to keep their jobs. In civilian society, gay men and lesbians are
legally permitted to be “open” about their sexual orientation, but research indicates that they
tend to be open about their sexual orientation only with someone they know and trust (e.g.,
friends) rather than with someone they don’t know as well (e.g., neighbors). (See Figure 22.)

We believe this selectivity would exist even more so in the military environment, apart
from what the law may prohibit or permit. RAND conducted a limited survey that included
208 individuals who anonymously self-identified as gay or lesbian Service members and
asked them how their behavior would change if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed. Only
15% indicated they would like to have their sexual orientation known to everyone in their
unit if the law is repealed, and 59% would selectively disclose it to others. (See Figure 23.)