Interesting article from NYT 1990.
In recent weeks, the Supreme Court refused to consider two constitutional challenges to the military's policy of barring homosexuals from service. The first case involved a male Navy officer, the second a female Army sergeant, both of whom were discharged for displaying ''a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct.'' In neither case did the military present evidence of such conduct; the ''propensity'' alone was considered sufficient grounds for discharge. In the wake of the passions generated by this controversial issue, Allan Berube's historical account of gay soldiers in World War II, ''Coming Out Under Fire,'' provides a timely and valuable perspective.
In theory, during the war, homosexuals were supposed to be screened out at induction centers on the grounds that they would make poor combat soldiers and that their presence would threaten discipline and morale. (The same rationale was applied at the outset against blacks as well.) The screening devices typically used with male inductees included observation of female bodily characteristics and mannerisms, answers to questions regarding occupational choice (men who checked off interior decorator or dancer were immediately suspect) and responses to the question: How do you like girls?
But in practice, Mr. Berube argues, since the pressure to meet unfilled quotas was so great, the examinations were often perfunctory. As a result, hundreds of thousands of homosexuals, perhaps a million or more, made their way into the armed forces, serving in all branches of the military - as tank drivers and clerks, riflemen and bombardiers, messmen and gunnery officers.
''Coming Out Under Fire,'' the product of more than 10 years of research, of digging into archives and interviewing scores of veterans, is the story of how - out of necessity - the military coped with this large influx of homosexuals, and how gay men and women coped with the military. It is the contention of Mr. Berube, a historian of homosexuals in the United States, that the majority of gay male soldiers experienced an unexpected, if somewhat uneasy, acceptance by fellow soldiers so long as they refrained from aggressively pursuing uninterested men. Inspired by the necessity of living together in close quarters, heterosexuals developed ''their own pragmatic ethic of tolerance: 'I won't bother you if you don't bother me.' '' To be sure, some gay soldiers were harassed and abused by straight soldiers, but if a homosexual performed a useful function in his unit, that generally took precedence over the suspicion or even the knowledge that he was gay.
Necessity also played a role in relaxing the policy of discharging homosexual soldiers if they were caught having sex. Whereas in World War I, solely on the discovery of a love letter written by another soldier, a young Navy man was convicted of sodomy and sentenced to 15 years in prison, the more common practice in World War II was to send offenders to sick bay, where psychiatrists and other doctors attempted to distinguish ''experimenters'' from ''confirmed perverts.'' Since the long public trials of the type conducted during World War I were considered too costly in time and energy, a simpler procedure was adopted: the ''experimenters'' were generally returned to duty, while the ''perverts'' were subjected to administrative discharge. ''There was a war on,'' said Ted Allenby, a gay Marine who fought at Iwo Jima. ''Who in the hell is going to worry about this . . .?''
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/08/books/gay-soldiers-they-watched-their-step.html?pagewanted=1