A debate is heating up over homosexuality in the military as the National Human Rights Commission opposes criminal punishment against gay soldiers. On Monday, the presidential panel adopted a position that the military criminal code banning homosexuality infringes on gay servicemen’s rights to equality, privacy and sexual preferences.
It marked the first time that a government agency or a state-affiliated commission has taken a liberal stance on the sensitive issue. It might be natural for the panel to advocate the rights of individual solders regardless of their sexual orientation.
The position came after a gay rights group lodged a petition with the commission in May to overhaul the military code that could be seen as discriminatory against homosexual servicemen. The Constitutional Court is also reviewing the code to decide on its constitutionality. The review is in response to a military court’s 2008 request to rule if the homosexual ban is in line with the Constitution.
Apparently, the military court has found it hard to apply the ban to a staff sergeant who was indicted for a consensual homosexual act. There were 176 cases of homosexuality in the military between 2004 and 2007. Four of the cases were involved in consensual homosexual acts, while gay soldiers in three of the four cases were convicted of violating the code.
Against this backdrop, the panel’s view against the ban is likely to influence the Constitutional Court’s ruling. The court should make efforts to reflect the pros and cons from all walks of life. The issue may divide Korean society, pitting liberals against conservatives as well as gay rights activists against the military and the government.
The rights panel said that homosexuality does not directly weaken combat capability, morale or unity. It noted that punishing homosexuals constitutes discrimination based on a soldier’s sexual orientation, adding that the ban is anachronistic.
Gay rights movements welcomed the commission’s stance, while right-wing and conservative civic groups are against it. The Ministry of National Defense was certainly baffled about the panel’s opposition to the ban. A ministry official reiterated the need to maintain the military code of criminalizing homosexual acts.
What’s imperative is that the nation should strive to build a consensus on the issue before the court makes a decision on it. This is not to say that the military should or should not maintain the punishment clause for gay soldiers. The question is how to deal with homosexuals. Labeling them as criminals may not be the best way of keeping military discipline.
Korean society needs to become more open and embrace minorities, including those having different sexual orientation. Homosexuals are also members of our society and all physically and mentally healthy men are subject to military conscription regardless of their sexual preferences. Therefore, it would be better for the military to eliminate discrimination against gay soldiers. We hope that the court will make a wise decision.