ane@hal.UUCP (08/19/84)
Due to a number of articles which I have seen concerning cases of
discrimination against homosexuals I thought some might find this
newspaper article of interest.
***************************************************************************
*** THE PLAIN DEALER ***
Saturday,August 18, 1984
page 1
" Court upholds Navy homosexual ban "
Washington (AP) - A U.S. Court of appeals panel yesterday upheld
the Navy's mandatory policy of discharging homosexuals.
James L. Dronenburg, a Navy petty officer who had served for nine
years as a Korean linguist and cryptographer with top-secret clearance,
was discharged by the Navy on April 21, 1981, after he admitted he was
a homosexual and had repeatedly engaged in homosexual conduct in a barracks
on the Navy base.
Dronenburg, enrolled as a student in the Defense Language Institute
in Monterey, Calif., at the time of his discharge, argued that the Navy's
policy violated his constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection
under the law.
The three-judge appeals panel in an opinion written by Judge Robert
H. Bork affirming the decision of a lower court, said the Supreme Court
has established the right to privacy in cases relating to marriage, pro-
creation, contraception, family relationships and child rearing and education.
"It need hardly be said that none of these covers a right to homosexual
conduct," the ruling said.
The panel also said the Constitution has provisions that protect,
among other things, racial, ethnic and religious minorities.
"If a court refuses to create a new constitutional right to protect
homosexual conduct, the court does not thereby destroy established con-
stitutional rights that are solidly based in constitutional text and
history," the ruling said.
"We conclude, therefore, that we can find no constitutional right to
engage in homosexual conduct and that, as judges, we have no warrant to
create one," it said.
The court also said the effects of homosexual conduct within a naval
or military unit are almost certain to be harmful to morale and discipline.
"We believe that the policy requiring discharge for homosexual conduct
is a rational means of achieving these legitimate interests,"the court said.
***************************************************************************
Hmm. Seems to me that if the military is concerned with morale, the number
of problems some married hetero couples have would be of greater interest.
And how about people who's SO's break up with them while in the service.
I hereby submit that anyone with such problems should also be automatically
discharged not homosexuals. I would enjoy hearing how the court even could
decide that homosexual conduct is harmful to morale and discipline. Where
did they ever come up with those 'facts'?